The Rootstrikers and Job One: A Buddhist Take On Getting Money Out of Politics

Rootstrikers (rootstrikers.org) recently held a conference in San Francisco that was webcast to a national audience. It was an incredibly well designed event dealing with the corrupting influence of money in politics.What came out most clearly at the conference was that getting money out of politics is Job One (my term) for anyone interested in social or environmental justice. To call it Job One means that all attempts at transforming our system, from action on climate change to addressing widening economic inequality WILL GO NOWHERE as long as wealthy interests control our political system.So, who are the Rootstrikers, and what’s with that name? Founded by Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, the group takes its name from a statement of Henry David Thoreau:

For every thousand hacking at the branches of evil, there is one who is striking at the root.” 

Although this somewhat academic reference may not ring a bell for most Americans, the name “rootstrikers” does hint that money is the root of all evil in our politics and must be removed by radical surgery.Before saying more about the conference, I want to say why I believe that getting the money out of politics is a critically important issue for Buddhists. Many Buddhists agree with Buddhist Peace Fellowship's late founder Robert Aitken’s perennial protest sign, “The System Stinks!” And many Buddhists have been following BPF’s online campaign of the same name. I urge all those who wish to create a more compassionate society to regard getting money out of politics as Job One.Here’s what convinced me that this issue is Job One. In 2011, Stanley B. Greenberg, a pollster and respected consultant to the Democratic Party wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled, “Why Voters Tune Out Democrats.” This may seem like a worry for Democrats alone, but Greenberg was addressing a question many of us have asked each other: “Where is the outrage?” Why are the American people so passive in the face of so many abuses against our basic values? Through polling and focus groups, Greenberg came up with a disheartening answer:

…[Voters] are fairly cynical about Democratic politicians’ stands. They tune out the politicians’ fine speeches and plans and express sentiments like these:“It’s just words.”“There’s just such a control of government by the wealthy that whatever happens, it’s not working for all the people; it’s working for a few of the people.” “We don’t have a representative government anymore.”

This had the effect of waking me up to a basic mistake I was making about my fellow Americans. My mistake was thinking that only a thoughtful few Americans were paying attention to how bad things were getting.Greenberg’s research showed me that the American people are NOT oblivious to what goes on in the public sphere. Instead, it shows that they are suffering from a loss of faith and a sense of helplessness so total that they don’t even see the point of protesting!It will be lethal to our society if all Americans become cynical about their democracy. Cynicism is the cancer of democracy; it delegitimizes all of our democratic institutions and makes it difficult to imagine how they can ever become legitimate again.Lessig gave the keynote address at the conference. It was an expanded and updated version of his TED talk, which has been seen by more than 700,000 people. I urge you to watch this 18-minute video to help you decide whether this is an issue of importance to you. Lessig is famous for his PowerPoint presentations and this one dazzles, but what is more remarkable is the passion he conveys when speaking straight to his audience.The conference consisted of a series of panels that ostensibly “debated” some of the key issues in dealing with money in politics. For example, one panel was divided between speakers who urged “classic” public funding of candidates (the government gives them money), or a voucher system (the voter gives money to a candidate and takes a tax deduction). Another panel “debated” how to overturn the Citizens United case (in which the current Supreme Court held that corporate money in elections was OK because corporations are “persons” with the right of free speech, and money = free speech). David Cobb (movetoamend.org) and Cenk Uygur (wolf-pac.com) argued for a Constitutional Amendment, while Daniel Newman (maplight.org) argued for stronger donor disclosure, since statistics show people vote against candidates or propositions that are fronts for special interests.Listening to these “debates”, this attendee realized that 1) in each case, both alternatives have merit and that 2) I had just received an excellent training in the basic points of campaign finance reform. I put quote marks around “debate” because all the speakers seemed to be willing to live with either alternative, as long as something was done to control the corrupting influence of money. Hopefully, rootstrikers.org will make the video of the conference available online.Yet another panel discussed whether the current private financing of elections was undermining voting rights. Here, Adam Lioz with Demos (demos.org) argued that regarding money as free speech dilutes the principle of “one man [sic], one vote.” In one of the few references to the role of capitalism at the conference, he said that the constitution guarantees all citizens political equality, but capitalism creates economic inequality, allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to write the rules for democracy, rather than the other way around. Jakada Imani of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights argued that the mass incarceration of people of color was due to prosecution of simple possession cases in the ghettos financed by the War on Drugs, while there was little or no “war on drugs” in mostly white suburbs and college campuses.Finally, Lessig addressed the question of political anger in a way that should resonate with Buddhists. He maintained that it is natural for humans to become incensed at the corruption of our political system, but that this negativity will quickly subside if we realize that our main motivation for transforming our political system is not hatred of the rich, but rather a love of democracy.In Buddhist terms, if our love of democracy remains based on our compassion for all people – rather than our hatred for some people – our efforts to save our democracy cannot go wrong.