Part 2: Cambridge’s Critical Problem (Not Housing)
Also known as equity in political influence.
Part 2 of a series on my priorities as a first-time candidate for Cambridge City Council. Next: Part 3: Housing Affordability
Every other policy priority — and, in fact, every process in our city — depends on equitably balancing the needs of all residents. Residents include not just those who show up to public meetings or who start petitions. They include busy parents, service workers, students, the unhoused, seniors, and others who simply don’t have the schedule, bandwidth, interest, or ability to initiate such participation.
To be clear: Public comment and other such channels are absolutely valuable. I fully believe residents should be able to use these to express their views. But those who do are simply not representative of our entire population. A process fully reliant on such measures is the antithesis of equity. It means the needs of our most time-strapped, politically inexperienced, and generally overburdened continually fall through the cracks of the system. Of course, included among these are our most desperately vulnerable.
This issue strikes at the core of what it means to have any semblance of a just community. It underpins every policy decision and government operation. There is nothing more pressing.
I intend to set aside some modest funding for a small internal research and innovation team. Its mission will be investigating ways to improve processes and services in our city. Its first task will be finding methods to gain timely, representative views into the true needs of residents for ongoing policy decisions of particular impact.
Minimal, yet strategic polling for such issues is one possibility. This might be done via phone or text. Such a strategy would put the onus on our government, and not on our busy populace, to initiate critical communication related to just those issues likely to deeply impact their lives.
In any case, I know there is a better way to incorporate crucial intel into our decisions. We’ll never reach perfection, but improvement is valuable. This is my background and I know it can be done. If we really do want equity in our city, there is no more urgent investment.
Equity In Political Influence, Continued
We need to get rid of money in politics. Political participation based on giving money to elected officials handicaps those of lesser means in pushing their priorities. Influence is instead concentrated among the wealthiest. The system also creates politicians whose time is spent calling up rich donors for hours on end and listening to their every thought and concern instead of constructing effective policy. Politicians, that is, who are inevitably more beholden to and who become more sympathetic with these backers.
Consequently, it is the opposite of shocking that policies benefiting the wealthy are realized at the expense of those benefiting anyone else. This increases the wealth gap, further disadvantaging the less wealthy in their ability to influence. The spiral ultimately results in crippling the ability for struggling people to have comparable political voice as well as deep neglect of their needs.
Let’s build a system that serves our people, not the highest bidder. Here in Cambridge, individual campaign contributions are capped at $1000 per person, per year. This is better than in many areas. However, we live in a reality where more than one in three Americans would have trouble paying an unexpected $400 expense, let alone a $1000 gift.
Also, there is no limit on what candidates themselves can contribute to their own campaigns. Nothing prevents a billionaire from plowing as much as they want, without limit, into an election that directly enriches their bottom line. Amazon already tried to do this in Seattle, injecting millions into a local city council election that would decide critical real estate priorities impacting their office headquarters.
Something similar can happen here. And why wouldn’t it? Cambridge contains research and development offices for every multinational tech giant on the planet. Not to mention our density of pharma giants. We must plug this loophole.
No, money raised by a candidate does not, in itself, guarantee victory. There are other factors at work. Money is just one necessary, influential piece. But it’s not just about who wins elections; it’s about who among us is able to run in the first place. In my time as a candidate, I’ve witnessed several prospective fellow candidates hesitate or opt out of running because they felt they didn’t have the personal funds or monied connections to be a viable contender.
This, in itself, is disgusting. There are few means for silencing an entire demographic more clearly disempowering than effectively barring some from holding public office. Or, at the very least, imposing substantial, unnecessary, and wholly discriminatory added barriers. If we ever feel disappointed by an unimpressive selection of personalities from whom we must choose our governors, councillors, and presidents, perhaps we should look at our system for getting elected. Our process filters out nearly all but heavily-backed partisans. That is simply reality.
Cambridge should model a better way. There are limits to what local government can do, given unfortunate federal court decisions about money as political speech. However, even if we cannot fully implement 100% public financing, we must do everything possible to restrict the impact of campaign donations. Reducing maximum donations and implementing laws restricting donors from immediately profiting through work with the city after large donations are two measures that should be pursued.
