Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Debate gives Bloomberg airtime to detail (and defend) his democracy reform ideas

Mike Bloomberg

The Las Vegas debate will be Mike Bloomberg's first, giving him the opportunity to reveal his position on democracy reform.

Brett Carlsen/Getty Images

Mike Bloomberg's debate debut offers him an opportunity to explain where he stands on most of the main agenda items in the democracy reform movement, a topic on which he's revealed little so far.

And if he doesn't volunteer his views, starting with his attitude as a self-funding billionaire candidate toward regulating the campaign giving and spending by others, his presidential rivals will have every incentive to press him hard Wednesday night.

Of the 17 most prominent proposals for improving the way democracy works — not only on campaign finance but also on access to the ballot box, election security, political ethics and revamping our governing systems — Bloomberg has staked out a clear position on just 10.



Made with Flourish

That's fewer than any of the five others who qualified for the nationally televised two-hour forum, starting at 9 p.m. Eastern in Las Vegas. One of Bloomberg's main, albeit struggling, rivals for the more centrist lane in the Democratic primaries, former Vice President Joe Biden, has only revealed his stance on 11 of the issues.

The nationally televised forum comes as Bloomberg has surged into the top tier in national polling, almost entirely thanks to his more than $300 million spent selling himself on TV and online. The debate marks the first time he'll be confronted by many of his opponents in person, and they are sure to attack him over his record as mayor of New York and the muscular use of his enormous fortune to promote a varnished version of his views.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

While the range of areas for potential confrontation is vast, there's reason to believe the plight of the dysfunctional democracy will be discussed as it's seldom been in the eight previous debates.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has become the front-runner in part by castigating the behavior of billionaires at every turn, and Bloomberg will be an obvious foil for a fresh barrage of angry talk about the corrupting influence of big money on both campaigning and governance.

The three remaining candidates on stage — former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — have all formally pledged that their opening legislative priority as president would be a bill revamping the political system and boosting government ethics. So any one of them could press Bloomberg on whether he would do the same.

Despite heavy criticism for tapping the $60 billion fortune he's amassed as a media mogul for the entirety of his campaign — he's not soliciting or accepting any donations — Bloomberg has been silent on what if anything he'd do to reduce the influence of money in politics.

All the other debaters, for example, support somehow "overturning" the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which has allowed for virtually unlimited political spending. They also support robust programs of public financing for federal campaigns and requiring more transparency from the "dark money" groups who currently don't have to disclose their donors. But Bloomberg has not weighed in on any of these issues.

Since he is only spending his own money, Bloomberg boasts that his would be an administration completely insulated from the influence of special interests. And so, unlike the others on stage, he has made no promises about rebuffing the donations from lobbyists that normally pour into presidential coffers.

Bloomberg also has not embraced transparency the way many of the others have. On top of releasing their own federal tax returns, they favor requiring all presidential candidates to do so. Bloomberg has said he would make his IRS filings public only if he wins the Democratic nomination.

Presidential candidates also have to file personal financial disclosure reports with the Federal Election Commission that include in broad ranges their assets, income and debts. But the FEC has granted Bloomberg, who only entered the race in November, two deadline extensions, so his report won't be available until March 20. While such an extension is not uncommon, it means voters won't see details about Bloomberg's finances until more than halfway through the Democratic primaries.

Like all the others in the debate, Bloomberg wants to ease access to the ballot box two ways. He would revive the Voting Rights Act's system for making states with histories of electoral discrimination get federal permission before changing any voting rules. And he would nationalize the requirement, which is steadily spreading in the states, that eligible people are automatically registered to vote whenever they do business with another government agency, such as a motor vehicle bureau.

Bloomberg and the other candidates (except Biden) favor early voting and same-day voter registration.

He would restore voting rights to felons as soon as they have served their sentences — putting him in the same company as all the others except Sanders, who would allow people to vote while imprisoned.

To ensure election integrity and security, Bloomberg would mandate a voting paper trail and post-election audits in every state. He would also compel states to establish independent redistricting commissions to draw the congressional district boundaries after the census each decade. These stances are in line with the other Democrats.

As of Friday, Bloomberg's campaign website included a plan for political reform, which was noted as a "top priority." It mainly touted his 12-year record as mayor, ending in 2013, of increasing public campaign subsidies for local candidates and strengthening ethics laws. The brief was removed from his roster of more than 30 policy pages over the weekend. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Bloomberg does set himself apart from his rivals on two issues, though. He is opposed to abolishing the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote. And he has no interest in changing the Supreme Court's makeup by adding justices to the bench or implementing term limits. Biden is the only other Democrat in agreement with Bloomberg on these issues, although some of the others say they are open to such proposals without making a firm endorsement.

The debate is being hosted by NBC, MSNBC and the Nevada Independent. Bloomberg's spot on stage is largely thanks to a rule change by the Democratic National Committee. Previously, candidates qualified by showing strength of support through donors and polls. But at the end of January, the DNC eliminated the unique donor threshold, opening the stage to Bloomberg as soon as he proved the viability of his candidacy in a series of national surveys.

Several Democrats claim the DNC made this change just to benefit Bloomberg. FEC data shows that just two days before entering the race, he gave $320,000 in three installments (the maximum amount allowed) to the national parry — his first donation to the committee in more than two decades. No one else on the debate stage has given to the DNC this election.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less