good:

Infographic: What’s the Cost of Getting Into Congress?

GOOD is partnering with Lawrence Lessig and Rootstrikers to shine a light on the corrupt relationship between political fundraising and lobbyist power in this country. Through a series of infographics and articles titled Capital in the Capitol, we’ll be evaluating the campaign finance system, PACs, and how money influences certain political results in this country—which, in turn, affects all of us.

Take a look at our first infographic, which shares some surprising facts about how much it costs to run for office and where political representatives get that money. 

Take a closer look at GOOD.is

Cough, ahem, Citizens United, cough, ahem.

Funny, I went to a training apropos to this earlier today, covering the constraints on political activity by 501(c)(3) organizations. Sometimes it feels like a pain that we non-profits can’t endorse a candidate, say, but when you think about the potential for funneling money under the radar / tax free, and how much that already happens, it’s not so bad. (I should write something on this. I keep meaning to update the law blog but a girl can only write so many blogs. My life is so hard.)

Unrelated, plus 10 for the design. The ticket idea is a great concept.

I thought this piece in the NY Times “Campaign Stops” feature was interesting, but when I learned the author did much of her research in the church community to which my two sisters, numerous friends, and a handful of spiritual mentors for whom I have the utmost respect have all belonged, I was fascinated.

A brief excerpt, but worth the full read:

If you want to understand how evangelicals conceive of their political life, you need to understand how they think about God. I am an anthropologist, and for the last 10 years I have been doing research on charismatic evangelical spirituality — the kind of Christianity in which people expect to have a personal relationship with God. They talk to God, and in some way or another, they expect that God will talk back. This is a lot of people. In 2006, the Pew Forum reported that 23 percent of Americans embraced this kind of “renewalist” Christianity and that 26 percent said they had received a direct revelation from God.

What someone believes is important to these Christians, but what really matters is becoming a better person. As I listened in church and participated in prayer groups, I saw that when people prayed, they imagined themselves in conversation with God. They do not, of course, think that God is imaginary, but they think that humans need to use their imagination to understand a God so much bigger and better than what they know from ordinary life. They imagine God as wiser and kinder than any human they know, and then they try to become the person they would be if they were always aware of being in God’s presence, even when the kids fuss and the train runs late.

This is tough to do. Christians understand that it is hard and so they practice being with God in many different ways. They set themselves tasks — ministering in jail, feeding the homeless, helping to set up the church on Sunday morning — so that they can grow through the experience of service. They care about the task, of course, but even more they care about becoming a person of God through doing the task.

I had a hard time with the e word. In theory I should claim it as my own (rich!) heritage, but I hate the crazy connotation it carries in my modern, urban world. “Those evangelicals,” we say, that weird and distant breed.

But the organization for which I now work describes itself as evangelical. I initially felt uncomfortable with it and I asked my supervisor what that word meant, “officially.” I was surprised to see the components are all things to which I readily agree, key aspects of my own vibrant, urban, modern, artsy, intelligent, social justice-loving church community. Oh. It’s not “those evangelicals.” It’s “we evangelicals.”

So, what’s our deal?

Part of the problem is the actual definition of evangelical is essentially the core tenants of Christianity, which means it incorporates a broad, diverse swath of people. Politically, is this broadly defined “evangelical” even a relevant category?

But the broad definition is not how the word is used. It’s got that crazy connotation. As portrayed publicly, it’s people who yell and seem obsessed with positions on social issues that are awkwardly out of step with what liberal secular folks take for granted.

But that’s not who many of us are. Sure, you know a pleasantly liberal Christian, maybe you’re ok with that kind of “evangelical.” (Thanks, I appreciate it).

But even at more conservative churches I’ve attended, I have never heard sermons on abortion or homosexuality. That stuff has assumed a weirdly urgent and prominent public face for some segments of American evangelical Christianity, but it’s not what occupies our daily spirituality, even the conservative amongst us.

Daily spirituality is about worship, walking with a God you believe you can know, conforming your heart to be more fully like that God. Part of the frustration many of us feel is surely the disconnect between what occupies daily spirituality and what some have dug into as public priorities. As Christians who lean politically liberal point out, Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, but he talked an awful lot about money.

Anyway, the author’s point is not theological, but political — she explains how Democrats can frame their positions in “a political language that evangelicals can hear.”

They should talk about the kind of people we are aiming to be and about the transformational journey that any choice will take us on. They should talk about how we can grow in compassion and care. They could talk about the way their policy interventions will allow those who receive them to become better people and how those of us who support them will better ourselves as we reach out in love. They could describe health care reform as a response to suffering, not as a solution to an economic problem.

As a Christian who is drawn to political positions that tend to be liberal because of and not in spite of my faith, I welcome Democrats learning how to better communicate these ideas … but I would also be thrilled if my fellow evangelicals reached these conclusions the same way I did: by poring over scripture and feeling called by a living God that I have the audacity to believe I can know.

christiannightmares:

Billy Graham releases ad urging North Carolinians to vote against gay marriage (To read the story, visit The Friendly Atheist)

I work for an organization that has ‘evangelical’ as part of its description, and I don’t support this message.

Evangelical means one bringing good news. In the Christian context, the good news is that while you, like each of us, are broken, God loves you and desires a relationship with you; that this is not earned, but freely given; and that this love and relationship are possible regardless of any barrier you could think of, other than your refusal to accept it.

You could quibble with the particulars of the essential Christian message - maybe my wording is not elegant; maybe my emphasis is unbalanced. I may have even omitted something worth mentioning. But I can say with certainty that a stance in favor of a secular government’s ‘marriage amendment’ is not part of the package.

{In other news, I am a lawyer, and I don’t support this logic.}

An acquaintance directed this hilarious video. The Michele Bachmann rap interlude is my favorite part.

good:

sunfoundation:

The Political One Percent of the One Percent

In the 2010 election cycle, 26,783 individuals (or one in ten thousand Americans) each contributed more than $10,000 to federal political campaigns. Combined, these donors spent $774 million. That’s 24.3% of the total from individuals to politicians, parties, PACs, and independent expenditure groups. Together, they would fill only two-thirds of the 41,222 seats at Nationals Park the baseball field two miles from the U.S. Capitol. When it comes to politics, they are The One Percent of the One Percent.

Politics just got crazier.

That’s funny, because this is kind of like that dream I had the other night, Tumblr, the one where we used our collective smarts to make this infograph. Only we did it in the form of a Christmas tree and the 1% got a big red bow.

lawforthepeople:

— UC-Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi, explaining why she shouldn’t be held accountable for the UC Davis pepper spray incident (numerous videos available at the above link, if by some strange chance you haven’t seen one yet).

“Moving forward” has become a handy euphemism for ignoring abuses of power and shielding the people responsible from consequences. (Though the call for starting the healing process and moving forward is strangely absent when the accusations are against, say, young people of color or non-citizens.)

Katehi’s call to move forward is hardly the first time the language has been code for free pass. As Glenn Greenwald wryly notes, that same day, Vice President Dick Cheney publicly lauded President Obama for not prosecuting people responsible for the Bush administration’s “enhanced-interrogation” policies, itself code for torture. (Just like “Iraq has WMDs” was code for “No it doesn’t.”)

Obama himself has used these words like a mantra, and even gained some devotees …

Guys, I’m super excited about this new series on my other project (an anti-stuffy law blog for non-legal people - smart & savvy people like you). You’re going to learn all about 1983 actions and Bivens and the ICC and political philosophy and why the heck Spain can prosecute someone from Chile. It’s going to be super fun.  Join us!

sciencevsromance:

“Nearly seven in ten adults nationally support increasing taxes on income over $250,000. … Even 51% of Republicans and 43% of Tea Party supporters favor these tax increases. Most U.S. residents — 83% — are against cutting Medicare and Social Security. … Even eight in ten Republican voters — 80% — and 74% of Tea Party supporters are against reducing Medicare and Social Security.”

— The numbers in yesterday’s McClatchy-Marist Poll are fascinating. 

Somehow, I don’t think this is the tyranny of the majority that Constitutional & other structural limits are supposed to protect from …

Matt Damon (via lonelywerewolfgirl)

I’m not disagreeing {except, what does “You get to be American” mean? That’s another can of worms … } - but it’s too bad so many of my tax dollars go to things I’d prefer not to pay for.  I’m all for putting more money toward schools and health care but it turns out if I’m taxed $100 more dollars by the federal government, something like $52 of them go to past and current military, and approximately $10 go to education, whereas if I’m not taxed $100 more I could theoretically put $100 directly into education.

Of course a lot of people who aren’t taxed $100 more put the money into shiny pretty things instead, which is why I’m not a libertarian.  Sorry, I may not trust the government to spend money efficiently, but I trust individuals’ self-interest even less.

(via rachelplatten)

So Thailand joins the ranks of Germany, Argentina, India, even Pakistan.  Bolivia, Iceland, Switzerland, Malta.  The Philippines.  Nicaragua.  Ireland.

Damn.  Is there any country that hasn’t had a female head of state?  It almost doesn’t feel like an accomplishment anymore.  Oh wait.  There’s the US, in good company with Mexico, much of Africa, much of the Middle East and Russia.  Awesome.

I’m not as up on Thai politics as I used to be but the second I saw Thailand’s newly elected PM’s last name I felt like the headlines in Western media got it wrong.  It’s not really Thailand’s first female PM.  It’s just another Shinawatra.  Her family practically owns the country.  Her brother got ousted in a coup shortly after I left in 2006, and her sister’s husband was in power following, in 2008.  Is same old same old really something to celebrate, even if she’s got different anatomy? 

Thaksin, her brother, was beloved in the rural north - her family is from Chiang Mai, the ancient Northern capital, and Thaksin’s policies purported to be pro-rural poor.  He reduced rural poverty by half in four years, enabling Thailand’s poor to acquire modern amenities like cell phones.  Coincidentally, the family is a telecommunications giant.

He allegedly gave away free bags of rice in exchange for voting, resulting in the largest voter turnout in Thailand’s history in 2005.  The roads were clogged with pro-Thaksin convoys chugging toward the capital; it was impossible to decipher genuine enthusiasm from free rice.

He allegedly backed massive extrajudicial killings in drug-war-infested villages, but the villages got cleaned up.  In many places, it wasn’t safe to be out at night before his human rights violations.

He’s currently in exile in Dubai and has acquired Montenegrin citizenship.

Many of the development workers in the area were suspicious of Thaksin when I was there, but at the end of the day, they reasoned, at least he paid attention to the poor.  In contrast, I read reports in Bangkok newspapers claiming, for example, that Thailand shouldn’t have a full-on democracy, but something like a weighted vote for urban dwellers, with rural folk’s vote getting some fraction of a whole.  Sounds eerily familiar.