Or, How Americans Elect Is Trying to Have Its Cake and Eat It Too
The other day, in the course of discussing the dogged refusal of Americans Elect to disclose the names of its financial backers, I wondered:
How is it that Lawrence Lessig, one of the
most informed and eloquent critics of the undue influence of money over politics — and one of the most ardent and public advocates for financial transparency from elected officials, corporations and political institutions — winds up on the Board of Advisors (see "Leadership," here) of a political group with such a shadowy financial pedigree?
Shortly afterwards, the respected election law scholar and blogger Rick Hasen tweeted Lessig a version of my question — "Do you still support Americans Elect, given their transparency problem?" — and this triggered a lively exchange, which is recorded on their two blogs: Lessig's initial response, Hasen's counter and Lessig's final volley.
In the second of his two posts, Lessig offers this crisp little summary of his argument (emphases Lessig's):
AE is a platform. It will give one candidate a chance to get on 50 ballots, and challenge the Democratic and Republican nominee.
What will that candidate owe AE? Gratitude, no doubt. But is there anything in that gratitude that should lead anyone to worry that the candidate will bend one way or the other because of these secret funders?
How could it? If the candidates don’t even know who the funders are (and I can attest with certainty that [declared Americans Elect presidential candidate Buddy] Roemer (who also is critical of the nontransparency) doesn’t), how is the position of the funder supposed to affect the candidate and his or her positions?
Lessig's position seems to be that, although it might be preferable for Americans Elect to reveal who its funders are...
1
The anonymity of Americans Elect's funders is not a serious concern, because all they are funding is (a) the creation of an online voting platform and (b) 50-state ballot access — not specific candidates.
2
The anonymity of these funders is not an issue, anyway, because, unless both a specific candidate and a specific funder(s) are known to one another, there is no opportunity for political corruption to occur.
In taking this line, Lessig echoes and amplifies the message that one hears from Americans Elect officials like CEO Kahlil Byrd and COO Elliot Ackerman, as well as from Lessig's fellow advisory board member at Americans Elect, Mark McKinnon: that Americans Elect simply (a) is an alternative mechanism for getting on the ballot, and (b) is not backing any particular single candidate — and thus is in compliance with its IRS corporate status as a 501c4 "social welfare organization."
This message is at odds, however, with the one being promoted by another organization that has Lessig as an advisory board member: the Sunlight Foundation, which, in its reports and news updates (here, here and here, under "Campaign Finance"), has been tracking a petition by two watchdog groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, calling on the IRS to tighten its regulation of 501c4's and, specifically, to investigate
four of these groups, including Americans Elect, for non-compliance.
In one such report, "Dark money in the twilight of 2011," Sunlight flags a recent item by Rick Hasen, in which he writes (emphasis mine):
My big concern [until quite recently] was
that we would see a lot of transfers of money from 501c4s to affiliated super PACs to shield the identity of donors to super PACs....[T]he reason these transfers are not taking place is that it appears the 501c4s are engaging in much more direct election-related activity than they have in the past. That is, we are seeing some 501c4s becoming pure election vehicles. The relation of 501c4s to super PACs is now like the past relation between 527s and PACs — these are now the vehicles of questionable legality to influence elections....[F]ixing the coordination rules for super PACs...seems to
be fighting yesterday’s war already. The key
is to stop 501c4s from becoming shadow
super PACs. Yes, campaign finance reform community, it has become this bad: I want more super PACs, because the 501c4 alternative is worse!
In fact, what the Americans Elect funders are funding
is considerably more than just an alternative voting platform and a ballot access initiative — two seemingly altruistic enterprises.
The political contours of this "more" reveal the inadequacy of Lessig's response to Hasen's query.
Indeed, that Lessig identifies himself only as a "supporter" of Americans Elect — never mentioning
that he actually is on the Board of Advisors — suggests that Lessig may be well aware of a certain cognitive dissonance in his having a simultaneous official role in two organizations, one of which, Americans Elect, is keeping in the shadows the very thing on which the other, the Sunlight Foundation, is trying to shine a light.
As we'll see, what Hasen called Americans Elect's "transparency problem" cuts in a few different
directions.
:: :: ::
FOLLOWING Lessig's initial response to Hasen, Henry Farrell, who teaches political science and international affairs at George Washington University, posted
an insightful and nuanced challenge to Lessig
at Crooked Timber, the group blog where Farrell is
a contributor. This excerpt offers an opening to understanding the anti-democratic impulse at the
heart of Americans Elect (bold emphasis mine):
The problem that Lessig seems partly insensible to is that Americans Elect plausibly reflects a kind of purportedly non-partisan corruption that is more subtle but also more damaging than direct graft, or even the implicit quid-pro-quo relationships that he rightly excoriates. [University of British Columbia professor] Mark Warren gets at this nicely.
If corruption professionals look upon democracy
as an ambiguous force at best, one reason may
be found in our received conception of political corruption — the abuse of public office for private gain. ... This conception marginalizes the political dimensions of corruption — in particular, corruption of the processes of contestation through which common purposes, norms, rules are created; the institutional patterns that support and justify corruption; and the political cultures within which actions, institutions, and even speech might be judged corrupt.
...[T]he basic norm of democracy is empowered inclusion of those affected in collective decisions
and actions. ... In a democracy, meanings of political corruption gain their normative traction by reference to this basic and abstract norm of democracy. Political corruption in a democracy is a form of unjustifiable exclusion or disempowerment, marked by normative duplicity on the part of the corrupt. Corruption is marked not only by exclusion...but also by covertness and secrecy, even as inclusive norms are affirmed in public. Stated otherwise, the norm
of inclusion is not denied, but rather corrupted. Corruption within a democracy is thus a specific kind of disempowerment that I shall call duplicitous exclusion. Thus, in addition to the substantive harms often associated with corruption in democracies — inefficiencies, misdirected public funds, uneven enforcements of rights, etc. — we can think of corruption as damaging democratic processes.
Hasen’s critique suggests that Americans Elect is corrupt in just this sense. Even as it publicly affirms norms of inclusion, it provides a tiny and unaccountable group with a veto power that will be exercised to ensure that a ‘centrist’ candidate is chosen.
Lessig does seem to play up the traditional quid pro quo transaction — as though the most likely potential scenario for political corruption would be one in which
a specific funder (or funders) used Americans Elect to gain access to a specific candidate in order to extract (a) personal benefit(s). Of course, this is a straw man that Lessig easily knocks down, as soon as he points out that the donors are anonymous.
But, for some observers, it is not down at the granular, personal level of quid pro quo that the opportunity and the risk for corruption is most evident at Americans Elect. Rather, it is up at the systemic, process level — the level that, in order to see what's going on, requires a wider-angle lens that Lessig seems unwilling to use.
:: :: ::
IT'S IMPORTANT to understand that Americans Elect has a formally stated policy of neutrality that — if its Board actually was to enforce the policy — would go a long way toward assuaging concerns that individual directors or advisory board members or, indeed, the Americans Elect corporation as a whole, were pushing specific candidates.
The problem is that the Board does not seem to enforce the policy. At all.
According to Americans Elect's By-Laws, both Directors (Section 4.12) and Officers (Section 6.1)
shall not communicate or act in favor of or
in opposition to any candidate for President
or Vice President at any time before the adjournment of the online nominating convention of Americans Elect.
In a much broader mandate that would seem to include members of the Board of Advisors and anyone else who holds a titled American Elect position, the corporation's Rules (Section 10.0) state:
Until the Americans Elect ticket has been selected by majority vote of participating Delegates in the Nominating Round of voting, Americans Elect shall be neutral with respect to all Candidates and shall not endorse, oppose, advance, or advocate any particular Candidate.
Note that no distinction is made between "draft" and "declared" candidates.
And, yet — for months — there has been a steady
stream of Americans Elect directors, advisory board members and other personnel playing what Hasen calls "kissy-face" with various dream candidates. This is just a sampling:
1
In Hasen's example, former New Jersey governor and Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman joins former Oklahoma governor and U.S. senator David Boren in a statement — sent out as an Americans Elect press release — praising outgoing U.S. senator Olympia Snowe and quoting Snowe's citation of the "vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish."
2
Prior to this, Whitman went to the media at least seven times in favor of Jon Huntsman.
3
Courtesy of Lessig's Sunlight Foundation, we know that Americans Elect advisory board member Lynn Forester
de Rothschild held a thousand-dollar-a-head cocktail reception for Huntsman in January.
4
Also in January, a few weeks after Buddy Roemer declared his intention to seek the Americans Elect nomination, Americans Elect National Campus Director Nick Troiano staged (as in "stunt") a handful of Americans Elect promotional videos featuring Roemer.
5
Just a couple of weeks ago, the day after Roemer dropped his Republican bid and re-declared his Americans Elect candidacy, Lessig himself went on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and outlined what he sees as
the need to "knit together these 'outsider' movements" calling for solutions on issues like the deficit and to address the "underlying [financial] corruption issue."
This triggered the following exchange with Joe Scarborough (video starting at 3:06):
Scarborough: Professor, do you agree with me that, of all the candidates that are out
there right now in 2012, Buddy Roemer fits this profile best — and actually, I believe, has the best message, pure message, for 2012?
Lessig: Absolutely! I've been with Buddy,
I had him at my house ... Absolutely! ... Absolutely! I don't believe in his policies, but
I believe in his reform, and I think — you're right — that he is the one candidate that
would have done something.
6
"Would have done something." As if to suggest that Roemer no longer was running. And yet, only a week later, Lessig was back on the Scarborough set, with Roemer himself (video). Watch this clip and tell me that both guests are not campaigning for Buddy Roemer:
7
Just this week, Lessig took his Roemer campaign to Twitter:
That afternoon, the Coffee Party — another group on whose advisory board Lessig serves — re-tweeted Lessig's call to its 12,000 Twitter followers, illustrating that none of this political activity by Americans Elect, its directors, advisory board members and other staff is happening in a vacuum.
There is, of course, the possibility that Lessig has his
own agenda for Americans Elect that doesn't jibe with
the No Labels-ish storyline this is being promoted by its founder, directors, and officers — a storyline that also, one assumes, was "bought" by its seed funders.
But it's not all clear how Lessig's reported desire to lead others in "occupying Americans Elect" for a specific "reform" candidate — and, indeed, going on MSNBC ("Morning Joe") twice in the last month to campaign
for, and with, Buddy Roemer — squares with Lessig's being an Americans Elect advisory board member who, according to Americans Elect's own Rules and By-Laws,
is bound by a strict neutrality policy that places what
he is doing, well...out of bounds.
8
A couple of weeks ago, Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon was on the panel for Jon Huntsman's much-discussed appearance on "Morning Joe." The newly disencumbered Huntsman, who had recently left the Republican race, made news by saying that "this duopoly is tired" and calling for "something to compete against the duopoly," "some sort of third-party movement," "some alternative voice out there."
McKinnon, for his part, was full of praise for Huntsman, saying (video starting at 7:38):
I love everything you’re saying, and I’ve always liked your politics, and I’m sorry you didn’t make it through the Republican primary, but I think you’ll — can provide real political leadership, whatever you do going forward.
When asked by Scarborough (starting at 11:09), "Can an independent be elected President in 2012?", McKinnon offered a more specific idea of what Huntsman's "real political leadership" might look like:
Just on a blind poll, even when people don't even know who the ticket would be, 25 percent of voters say they'd support [an independent ticket]....Put Jon Huntsman on that ticket, and you'd get up to 51 percent, I guarantee.
9
Last November, McKinnon shared the stage with Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, Washington Post national political correspondent Karen Tumulty and political consultant Tad Devine at a moderated Harvard forum that considered the viability of an Americans Elect ticket in 2012. At one point — video starting at 20:53 — the moderator asks McKinnon what "type" of candidate he thinks would step up to run under the Americans Elect banner. McKinnon — “just off the top of my head” (but then reading off a piece of paper, suggesting that the question is a set-up) — obliges with the following roster of nine:
Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman, Jon Huntsman, Chuck Hagel, Bob Kerrey, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and John Chambers.
He reads the prepared list, with the barely disguised delight of a child naughtily but irrepressibly telling a secret — leaving no doubt that, between the question and the answer, "would" has turned into "should."
10
And then there's this slide from the Americans Elect presentation that Nick Troiano put together in January
offering these 49 names (originally 50, including
Steve Jobs):
Does this list look random to you? Sure, there are a
few token "liberals" here. But the main point of the list seems to be to illustrate what Americans Elect sees as the tolerable limits of "left" and "right."
And, with few exceptions, everybody here — which includes most of those already mentioned, as well as former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, who, right after being promoted by original Americans Elect champion of "radical centrism" Thomas Friedman as "a third voice for 2012," got his own kissy press release from Americans Elect — falls safely and uniformly with range defined by "conservative Democrat," all the way over on the center, and "moderate Republican," all the way over on the center right.
Which is not surprising, really, given CEO Kahlil Byrd's remark, at the Harvard forum, that "America is a center-right country" — a comment that Byrd rendered blithely, as if to be voicing something that was so obvious that only a fool would try to dispute it.
But who created this list? Certainly, it wasn't National Campus Director Nick Troiano, who just graduated from Georgetown last year.
More likely, it was the same people who created the list of 70-plus people — the list above, plus another 20 or so? — that, according to Byrd, Americans Elect has been trying to sell on the idea of running on an Americans Elect ticket.
Is this Americans Elect wish list being curated by some, or all, of the corporation's "Leadership"? Certainly.
Are some, or all, of the group's financial backers on
this Leadership list? Surely.
Are these backers also part of this recruiting effort — including deciding whom is to be recruited? Very likely.
Which specific backers are helping with recruiting decisions? Are the recruiting suggestions of these backers being weighted, either explicitly or implicitly, depending on the levels of their contributions? These things, we don't know.
But this much is certain: None of these promotional activities, on the part of Americans Elect directors, advisors and other personnel qualify as "neutral,"
under the Rules and By-Laws of Americans Elect.
And Americans Elect is doing a lot more than just building a voting platform and creating ballot access.
:: :: ::
ADDING to the dynamic that makes Americans Elect's agenda — or, to be more accurate, its owning of its agenda — as dark as its money, some official leaders of Americans Elect are in the habit of promoting Americans Elect and even promoting specific candidates, in the media and in other public settings, without disclosing their formal ties to the organization.
As we've seen, Lawrence Lessig never mentioned,
in his posts defending Americans Elect's financial non-disclosure practices, that he is on the group's Board of Advisors. Nor did he mention it in his appearances on "Morning Joe," when he was promoting Americans Elect declared candidate Buddy Roemer. Nor, for that matter, did either of the hosts or any of the panelists mention it. Nor was he provided with an onscreen caption that connected him in any way with Americans Elect. In fact, although Roemer made a cryptic reference to a "unity ticket," Americans Elect wasn't mentioned at all, in
either of these segments — which is odd, given that
they took place in the immediate wake of Roemer's having dropped his Republican bid and re-declared his Americans Elect candidacy.
Ditto, Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon, who — in addition to his Harvard appearance — has been a ubiquitous presence on NBC political news programs where Americans Elect has been the main topic; where Americans Elect or potential Americans Elect candidates have been analyzed and discussed; or where McKinnon has introduced and promoted Americans Elect in the context of another discussion. Over the last six months, McKinnon has appeared on such programs or program segments hosted by David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinki, Dylan Ratigan and Chuck Todd.
In some cases, actually, he appears alongside Americans Elect COO Elliot Ackerman. But — as you can see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here — in no case does McKinnon ever self-identify as being what he is: on the official Americans Elect team. The hosts, for their part, identify McKinnon only as a "political analyst" or "political strategist" or as a co-founder of No Labels.
As Jim Cook of Irregular Times points out (with linked reference to similar examples involving Americans Elect advisory board member and Michael Bloomberg pollster Douglas Schoen):
This is part of a pattern of Americans Elect corporate leaders going on TV and promoting their Americans Elect political brand under the neutral guise of “expert” without disclosing their leadership positions within Americans Elect.
A person hawking a product on a television news show should disclose (or have disclosed for them) their affiliation with the corporation selling the product. A person who will not disclose their affiliation is being unethical.
A news show that does not disclose such affiliations when they are public is not doing its job. A corporation that sends its leaders to sell a political solution in disguise has not earned your trust.
Transparency? Hell, even the Americans Elect FAQs are buried as two 3-month-old posts — here and here — on the Web site's unsearchable News feed.
:: :: ::
A COUPLE of weeks ago, Kahlil Byrd, speaking at
a panel discussion at New York University, cited the super PAC as one aspect of the two-party system that dramatizes the need for the kind of presidential ticket that Americans Elect is trying to produce. He was quoted as saying that:
the super PAC...seems like such an enormous thing. But it's 15 or 20 guys — and women — who are giving a lot of money and tilting campaigns one way or the other.
OK. But — given this and this and this and this and this — how is Americans Elect substantially any different, in political terms?
Of course, even in political terms, Americans Elect doesn't look exactly how we expect a super PAC to look. Which is the point of the term "shadow super PAC."
There is one snippet of Americans Elect messaging
that, when placed alongside everything else, seems
to reveal — perhaps with unintended candor — what Americans Elect really is about and why it's a problem.
The citation, above, about Americans Elect director Christie Todd Whitman's habit of promoting Jon Huntsman, highlighted Whitman's December 2011 interview with Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Joelle Farrell. Here's the relevant exchange (emphasis mine):
Farrell: You've said you like former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Do you think he could be the Americans Elect nominee?
Whitman: To me, he's the type of candidate that would appeal to them.
That's the same word, remember, that Americans Elect advisory board member Mark McKinnon had used at Harvard, a month earlier. I suggested that this particular moment, between McKinnon and the moderator — which provided McKinnon with an opportunity to read his list of nine favorites — seems a little staged (starting at 20:53; emphasis mine):
Moderator: Who's gonna be — who's the type of candidate? Mark mentioned all the great — all these great Americans who could be great presidents, or who certainly think in their own minds they could be great presidents. Who are the types of people you think might step up and actually put their name forward, or to have their name put forward at this nominating convention?....
McKinnon: Uh — sure — well — just off the top of my head, I'll tell you the types of people? —
Moderator: Yeah, types, I'm not gonna ask for specifics —
Of course, McKinnon plunges right into nine specifics. And notice how handy he is with that list.
Notice, too, that Americans Elect CEO Kahlil Byrd, who is sitting next to McKinnon on the stage, doesn't challenge McKinnon's riff. To the contrary, he seems to join in the chuckle over the reaction to someone's (his own or Tad Devine's) reaction that "those are good people."
But why is any Americans Elect director or advisory board member talking about what "type" of candidate would — or should — make a "love connection" with Americans Elect? After all, Americans Elect is just creating a voting platform and a ballot line. Right,
Kahlil? Right, Eliott? Christie? Mark? Larry? Right?!!
One well-placed writer cracked that, with his remarks
on "Morning Joe," Jon Huntsman was sending a
"Bat Signal" to Americans Elect.
Of course, as we've seen, Americans Elect has for months been sending Bat Signals to Jon Huntsman and others in Huntsman's "fiscally conservative, socially and culturally moderate" mold. And, just as the original Bat Signal always was revealed against the backdrop of a cloud, the constant, drip-drip pulse of statements and lists with which Americans Elect — through its directors, advisory board members, and staff, as well as through its own corporate news channel — has promoted specific candidates now has created a political tag cloud that reveals a highly specific ideological image.
:: :: ::
HOLD THAT thought, while you pay attention to this...
According to Section 8.0 of the corporate Rules of Americans Elect (emphases mine):
The Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket nominated by Americans Elect shall...consist of persons of differing ideological perspective or positions on the Platform of Questions to result in a balanced coalition ticket responsive to the vast majority of citizens....Subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates, the Candidate Certification Committee shall determine whether any proposed ticket is balanced by reference to candidates’ responses to the Platform of Questions....
So what are the Platform of Questions and the
Candidate Certification Committees? According to
Section 5.1 of the corporate By-Laws, these both
are "Standing Committees of Americans Elect"; and, according to Sections 5.3.2 (Platform of Questions Committee) and 5.4.2 (Candidate Certification Committee) of the By-Laws, the members of both committees are "appointed by the Board," "serve
at the pleasure of the Board" and "may be removed without cause."
Let's take a walk in the weeds, shall we?
According to Section 5.3.1 of the By-Laws (emphases mine), the Platform of Questions Committee — which, remember, is "appointed by" and "serves at the pleasure of" the Board...
shall be responsible for developing
proposed questions for submission to the Delegates; polling the Delegates to determine which questions to include in the final Platform of Questions, as well as any amendments thereto; tendering the Platform of Questions
to all persons who are identified either as potential or drafted candidates for Americans Elect nomination...disseminating all responses by candidates or draftees to the Platform of Questions; ensuring that candidate and draftee answers to the Platform of Questions are responsive and seeking responsive answers thereto; and, subject to the direction of
the Board, development of supplemental Platform of Questions as national and world events may dictate.
According to Section 5.4.1 of the By-Laws,
the Candidate Certification Committee — also
a committee that is "appointed by" and that "serves
at the pleasure of" the Board (emphasis mine)...
shall be responsible for certifying that candidates and draftees for the offices
of President and Vice President meet all constitutional eligibility, as well as to develop and apply criteria of demonstrated achievements based on qualifications
of past Presidents and Vice Presidents,
to ensure that only persons capable of performing the duties of President and Vice President are eligible for voting by the registered Delegates, subject only to a majority vote to the contrary by all registered Delegates....
Still with me? OK. But what, exactly, is this "Platform of Questions"? According to Sections 2.1.3.1 and 2.1.3.2 of the Rules (emphases mine):
“Comprehensive Questions” shall mean
the detailed questionnaire posted on the
Website to be answered by Delegates that shall be considered by the Platform of Questions Committee in preparing the Platform of Questions...and “Platform of Questions” shall mean the Delegate-driven and Platform of Questions Committee-refined questions posed to and answered by all Delegates and Candidates to ensure informed decisions by Delegates and unambiguous positions by Candidates ... Development of [the] Platform of Questions shall be determined by the Platform of Questions Committee in accordance with the Americans Elect Bylaws after consideration of Delegates’ responses
to the Comprehensive Questions and may be supplemented from time to time before
the nominating round of voting.
Do you begin to see a picture emerge? Do you see how much latitude the Board and its Committees have and how little influence the non-Board and -Committee delegates are guaranteed? (Yes, I understand that there is language about how the Board's decision is "subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates." But the voter suppression on display in the recent test case of the Board's response to the first delegate challenge to one of its decisions — documented (in sequence) here, here and here — should disabuse anyone of the notion that this Board is going to "go gently into that good night.")
Look, again, at Section 8.0 of the Rules (emphases mine):
The Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket nominated by Americans Elect shall...consist of persons of differing ideological perspective or positions on the Platform of Questions to result in a balanced coalition ticket responsive to the vast majority of citizens....Subject to reversal by majority vote of all registered Delegates, the Candidate Certification Committee shall determine whether any proposed ticket is balanced by reference to candidates’ responses to the Platform of Questions....
Bearing in mind everything else — including the Bat Signals and the tag clouds — do you see how "balance" begins to look like code for "type"?
:: :: ::
HERE'S the thing...
The same Americans Elect board that is refusing to enforce its own policy of neutrality — the same board that is permitting and enabling a specific "centrist" ideological profile to emerge in the public imagination as the Americans Elect "type" — also is the board that has determined that an ideologically "balanced" ticket is what is required, and that has empowered itself to decide what qualifies as "balance."
Lawrence Lessig wonders, in his two posts...
- "How is the secret money having any
secret effect?" - "How could the secrecy of the funders
corrupt anything?" - "How [are] secret donors...going to steer
this wide platform of potential competitors
one way or the other?"
Here are some questions in return:
Given the extraordinary power that the corporate board of Americans Elect has secured for itself in shaping the eventual Americans Elect ticket...
Given, too, Americans Elect's pattern of promoting only those candidates that answer to a specific ideological profile...
- Is it reasonable to believe that each of the 50 or
so wealthy secret backers of Americans Elect who floated the corporation secret six- and seven-figure checks did so without having been provided assurances by Americans Elect that Americans Elect, for its part, would be stacking the deck for exactly the kind of "centrist" nominee and ticket that it's been promoting for all these months? - What influence do these secret backers have in deciding who is on the Platform of Questions Committee, what the questions are, and how
the questions are framed? - What influence do these secret backers have in deciding who is on the Candidate Certification Committee, how "balance" is defined, and which nominee and ticket is certified as the most "balanced"?
And, especially given that Americans Elect, its directors, advisory board members and staff have whispered the actual names of people who, it would seem, all conform to an Americans Elect "type" of "fiscally conservative, socially and culturally moderate" candidate...
- Does the fact that Americans Elect seems so clearly to be working to ensure a specific type of nominee and ticket, rather than a specific one, really make the group any less "political," for
IRS purposes? - And does this fact that Americans Elect seems so clearly to be working to ensure a specific type of nominee and ticket, rather than a specific one, really make it any less a sign of political corruption, that Americans Elect presents itself
to the public as a neutral model of openness
and transparency, while acting in a contradictory fashion — and that Americans Elect pays for
this exercise with tens of millions of dollars of money from funders that Americans Elect
helps to keep secret?
Lessig wonders "how secret donors are going to
steer this wide platform of potential competitors
one way or the other." As I hope I've helped to demonstrate, here's how they already are doing it:
By funding a corporation and a process that
consistently enfranchises one specific type of
candidate (and supporters, including delegate
supporters, of such a candidate) — and that, in so
doing, consistently disenfranchises all other types
of candidate (and supporters, including delegate supporters, of such candidates).
If you are a potential candidate, or supporter of such
a candidate, who doesn't fit the American Elect profile, why bother participating, if you've been given reason
to believe that the fix already is in?
Even leaving the money out of it, what Americans
Elect is doing answers to the definition of the more insidious brand of political corruption that Henry Farrell
highlights — one in which, as Mark Warren writes, "the norm of inclusion is not denied, but rather corrupted." Take the secret money into account, and one also has the more obvious kind of corruption that Lessig has yet to acknowledge as a possibility.
So, one has to wonder: Exactly what kind of "social welfare" does Americans Elect have in mind?
Lessig talks a lot about quid pro quo, and my guess is that there is a quid pro quo going on at Americans Elect. But it's not the quid pro quo that Lessig rightly criticizes elsewhere in the political system — i.e., the one between a funder(s) and a specific candidate or elected official, in which the candidate or official is the one responsible for the "deliverable."
Rather, it's a quid pro quo between funders and a
specific organization. In this case, the corporate entity of Americans Elect is the one responsible for the deliverable — and the deliverable is a "centrist" nominee and ticket.
Of course, the contours of this new kind of quid pro quo are even more difficult to detect and trace than those of the old one — another reason why "shadow super PAC"
is such an apt term.
Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss — but with slicker PR.
Shadowy? To be sure. But hidden in plain sight.
