Nexus: Chapman's Journal of Law and Public Policy

With all the talk about the Citizens United case, many people are losing trust in their politicians. The fact that they are able to receive unlimited funds from different corporations is almost a sure recipe for corruption. So yes, the people have lost some faith in their representatives, but have THEY also lost faith in us, the voters? There seemed to be a time where be both trusted each other…what happened?

I am taking constitutional law this year and it’s interesting to see how each branch of government has evolved over time. Besides being an extremely difficult class, it is introducing me to a whole new idea of government. It seems like we are learning about a totally different government with different politicians; A more noble and honest government. It is just a reminder to me that, it wasn’t always like this.

I’m sure every politician throughout history has had his own agenda, but what made it so different back then? Maybe they were just more honest and up front about it. I wonder how they proposed propositions back then? Was it anything like it is now? With the politicians trying to “trick” the voters into believing they are voting for something that they really aren’t.

A few weeks ago, before the midterm elections, I attended a student debate concerning proposition 23 also known as the California Jobs Initiative, OR the Dirty Energy Prop. One of the big questions that were being debated was what the proposition really says. As it was worded, the proposition just wanted to freeze one of the clean air acts until California’s unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters, which the moderator told the audience only happened a handful of times.

Now someone unfamiliar with the history of the states unemployment rates will probably read this and think, “great idea, lets just pause certain extra spending until we get our employment rate back to normal”. When I saw the advertisements that is definitely what I thought. I am all for clean air and alternative energy sources, but didn’t see the harm in waiting a little while for our state to get back on its feet. I’m sure it takes a lot of state money to keep up all the clean air acts, and given the state we are in now, we could use a little less spending for a while.

However, when you read between the lines of the actual wording of the proposition, some have argued that it is actually a trick to delay environmental regulations indefinitely. Since you can count the number of times California’s unemployment rate was below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters on one hand, it is possible that the proponents of this proposition are hoping it just doesn’t happen again. And if it doesn’t happen again, the proposition would be essentially an indefinite delay of the environmental regulations.

Putting the issue of whether or not we should actually be spending, and how much, money on different kinds of clean energy acts, I feel a little betrayed by the fact that it seems like some of the drafters were trying to “pull a fast one” or something. Yes its true that I am not very familiar with the employment rate history in our state, but it seemed like the drafters were almost hoping that would be the case so I wouldn’t realize how rare the employment rate being under 5.5% for four consecutive quarters really is.

I would like to know what was going on in the mind of the drafters. Why weren’t they more clear with what they were really trying to pass? During the debate, the side that was in favor of the proposition had some really good points and it made me wonder why this was the first I was hearing of them. For instance, instead of denying the fact that the proposition would most likely delay the environmental regulations for much longer than people realize, they focused on real issues like why the proposition wouldn’t work even if the employment rate dropped. Instead of saying they just wanted to “wait”, they explained that even if there were no waiting, the proposition wouldn’t do the job the opponents wanted to do anyway. The arguments that were made during the debate were nowhere to be found in any of the television advertisements, which is where most of us get our information. I guess the politicians making the television advertisements thought they couldn’t trust us to take the time to listen and research if they came on TV and said “we don’t think we should be spending anymore money on the clean energy acts”, and unfortunately they are probably right.

I don’t think it was always like this though. Politicians who cant trust their own voters so they figure out how to twist the wording of different legislation so they can “trick” voters into voting for it. Now we are just in a world where the politicians don’t trust the voters, and voters don’t trust the politicians. How can we get anything done like this? Should voters trust the politicians? It might be hard to given all the money they get to push certain bills, the money they spend when the country is in crisis, and the ads we see attacking opponents character. While a candidate may be criticizing his or her opponent’s character, it also puts a bad taste in my mouth about that candidate himself or herself. I don’t know if I feel like I can trust someone who is willing to play so “dirty” and accept huge sums of money from corporations for their promise to not raise taxes for the rich, or some other act, just to win. The name calling and hitting below the belt is so unbecoming on both sides that it makes it difficult for me to have faith in either one of the candidates. However, on the same hand, should Politicians trust the voters?

Based on the recent years, it seems like the people have really responded to fluff speeches and tend to tune out when politicians try to talk about the real issues, since yes, they can be quite boring. So what’s a politician to do but give the people what they want? The people seem to really like these “pep talks” type of speeches, about “lock and loading” and “re-loading” (what does that even mean??), so why bore the people by talking about the actual real issues our country is facing today when all that will make them do is tune out and lose interest? We aren’t living up to our job as voters and decision makers of our country, so why should the politicians live up to theirs. The thing is, it wasn’t always like this. We need to figure out what went wrong and how to fix this vicious cycle. If we take a little more responsibility, maybe they will too.