A Civil Discussion: Why Is It Not Okay to Stray from the Party Line?

I appreciate those people who put in time and effort to help candidates to be elected for their parties. It is a noble calling. However, it is painful when their partisanship does not allow them to call on their elected leaders to do the right thing when they compromise away things that hurt their constituents. The argument I hear from my much more committed to winning one for the party friends is we win if we are moving things "in the right direction." I would put the emphasis on "right" over direction, as many of the compromises are there to appease right of center groups. My recent post about the DISCLOSE act showcases an example of such appeasement.

However, how can we trust in a politics that promises change, but delivers gradualism or plain sells out a group of people for the opportunity to declare victory for our side now? Whether it is funding the war, tackling global climate change, economic policy, or health care, it shouldn't surprise anyone that through whittling away at legislation, average people are asking "So how does this help me?"

This is the very type of politics that Paul Wellstone and others fought (and some continue to fight) against. Wellstone said, while debating against a bill, “I believe that we will deeply regret this stampede to pass this legislation and the way in which we have taken all the human rights, religious freedom, right to organize, all of those concerns and we just put them in parenthesis, put them in brackets, as if they don't exist.” By treating those special interests and the people who are the public face for them as having more "personage" than someone affected by results of that legislation, we should not be surprised that it leads to a radicalization of politics both further right and left.

Should we feel empathy for those who choose to support their parties, of course. They are genuinely trying to do things to the best of their abilities to shape policy around what they believe is best. But should we not also point out when they are being sycophants and not using their critical thinking ability?

I understand that no political party or politician is without flaws. Voting more and more becomes an exercise in who will do less to make you angry that you voted for them than a feeling of genuine belief that they are representing your interests. However, if we really believe that the Constitution has any relevancy in our lives, we need to remember that our representative democracy is dependent on an informed electorate, not just those who excel at cheer leading.

More Law or More Ingenuity?

The Iowa City city council is considering a more restrictive aggressive solicitation ordinance that would keep panhandlers and street musicians at least 15 feet from each other, would limit the area within the Ped Mall to something like a putting green on a miniature golf course for them to ask for help, and disallows the use of obscene language on solicitation signs. In asking the city council to reconsider the need for the more restrictive ordinance at their last meeting, I asked the members to look at current data to drive their decision, as they typically do when considering fiduciary matters. By a couple of the city council members’ own accounts they have been given no data that indicates any arrests or citations have occurred since the original aggressive solicitation ordinance was put in place over six months ago. That ordinance already prevents panhandlers from being within ten feet of store entrances and exits, fifteen feet from crosswalks, and twenty feet from ATMs, among other things.

Given as reasons to support the new ordinance is the request coming from the Downtown Association that there have been complaints by customers concerning some of the panhandlers bothering their customers and the effect is this hurts DTA businesses. Not to second guess the council or the DTA, but if there is a "problem" with aggressive panhandlers and street musicians on the Ped Mall, why aren't current laws being enforced?

The goal the City seems to be leaning toward is the systematic eradication of (or vastly limiting Ped Mall access to) those seen as "undesirable" by the business/real estate owners and others, whether they are acting in accordance with the current law or not. If the “data” that is driving their decision are the potential dollars and cents that businesses feel would come from a Disney-like public center, they should be straight forward and say so. If that is the intent, I’d go so far as suggesting that the City sell the Ped Mall to a real estate developer who could then privatize the space formally. At least then the real costs of doing business would not fall on the taxpayers.

As far as the notion that downtown is somehow unsafe? Why send the message to be afraid of downtown or the people in it. There is an old adage that works: “there is safety in numbers.” To ensure the numbers of people that are needed to support local businesses, incentive is needed to keep locals and out-of-towners discovering the specialness of downtown Iowa City. Look at what already brings people downtown: Friday night music, Saturday and Sunday night movies, art walks, theater, and festivals are all crowd pleasers. Why not work smarter to harness the power of individual creativity and community resources to convince any doubting Thomases that our downtown has a lot to offer and to support? Bring in a crowd and you won’t have to worry about a relatively small number of people.

To be clear, every businessperson is looking for a way to boost their bottom-line and that is her or his individual right. Panhandlers and business people probably at least this in common; they both want to make a living. But, as long as the Ped Mall is a public commons, the rule of law should balance a private request with the public good. The Iowa City bottom-line, in this case, should be to leave well enough alone.

Garry Klein is a member of FAIR! and Citizens for Community Improvement

Protest Press Conference Scheduled Tuesday

PRESS CONFERENCE: FREE SPEECH ON THE PED MALL
Iowa City, IA – On June 1, 2010, Iowa City Council will be considering a third reading to reduce the free speech zone of the Ped Mall to appease business interests that lobbied its members. We find this to be abhorrent to the 1st amendment Rights of all Iowa Citians and ask the City Council to reconsider passing this ordinance. On June 1st at 6:30 pm in front of City Hall, Citizens United for Free Speech will have a press conference to present our side of the story. Members of Iowa Citizen's for Community Improvement, the ACLU, the Bill of Right's Coordinating Committee, FAIR!, as well as street performers and fund-raisers for non-profit groups who will be affected by enacting a more rigorous "aggressive panhandling" ordinance will also be on hand.

As of the release of this notice, the current ordinance has not resulted in the citation or arrest of one person that it was intended to address. Our group is calling for a review of the enforcement of the current ordinance and asks the City Council to delay the last reading of the ordinance until more facts that would justify the action are presented by those who desire the law changed. We will share our survey results (see: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/J6LHR7G) that shows few Iowa City residents or visitors find the Ped Mall to be a dangerous place or unappealing to visit and because the impact for any group seeking goodwill donations will be permanently impacted by the Council's decision, believe this is a "solution seeking a problem."

Last month, the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, Bill McGinn, noted about the aggressive panhandling bill that he vetoed and his City Council backed up, "Although being asked for money on the street can be uncomfortable, it isn't illegal and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that this is protected speech." He also noted his concern that the law would be leveraged unfairly against those who were perceived to be a threat. We share his concerns.

The Most Annoying Law Ever?

If things weren't bad enough in Michigan, the city council of Brighton has had it with people who "in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose." As a result they approved a public conduct code Monday night, which includes fining someone up to $500 for being annoying.

The bill states it's unlawful for anyone to insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy any person in public. The ordinance was modeled after one in Royal Oak, where Brighton police chief Tom Wightman previously worked.

Examples where this rule could apply are: ongoing neighbor disputes; an ex-boyfriend or ex-spouse harassing an individual; unwanted and repeated text messages; harassing phone calls or hang-up calls; and co-worker harassment. Wightman said the goal is to interrupt these behaviors and put a stop to it. "Our intent is to protect citizens and to protect free speech as well," Wightman said.

Two council members expressed concerns for the language of the ordinance, but voted for it anyway. Brighton officials said the ordinance would be subjective and the call will be made by police officers.

Existing harrassment laws may work just as effectively and be less subjective? The law's passing left one local business owner, Rick Stames, scratching his head, "It just makes the city look stupid. There's enough that happens that make you look bad to begin with; why go out of your way?"

Working for the Man Every Night and Day

From Wired news:

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, sits quietly at the center of a high-profile legal storm hitting the nation's largest telecommunications companies for allegedly helping the government spy on American citizens' phone and internet communications without court approval.

In 2006, Klein stepped forward and handed sensitive AT&T documents to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group that was preparing a class-action lawsuit against the telecommunications giant. That case and more than 50 similar suits have been consolidated into five master complaints that are now proceeding in a federal court in San Francisco. This summer, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear AT&T's appeal of a key ruling that rejected the government's national security concerns and allowed the suit to continue. More

You have a right to an attorney--kind of

The Justice Department backed off a plan to limit prisoner visits with their attorneys to three visits. According to the AP, "Administration attorneys told a U.S. appeals court the Defense Department, which runs the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, determined the proposed three-visit limit is "no longer warranted," based on "a current evaluation of resources and needs."

There have been no restrictions on the number of visits by attorneys with their clients at Guantanamo but last month Justice Department lawyers proposed limiting attorneys with existing clients at Guantanamo to just three visits.

Justice Department lawyers said in a six-page court filing that the Defense Department still believes the other proposed restrictions are "warranted and appropriate."

One proposal would allow lawyer-client mail to be read by government officials who are not involved in the case.

Another proposed restriction would limit defense lawyers' access to classified information that was part of the tribunal record. They would get access only if the U.S. government determined they had a "need to know."

The appeals court is considering the procedures to govern the cases brought by the prisoners in light of an anti-terrorism law that President George W. Bush pushed through Congress last year.

That law took away the right of the prisoners to challenge their detention before U.S. district court judges in Washington, resulting in the dismissal of pending cases and a more limited review by the appeals court.