Michael Fox

Michael Fox
Location
Orange County, California, USA
Company
Fox Barker Communications
Bio
Michael Fox has a J.D. from the University of Wisconsin Law School and an M.F.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine. He is a partner in Fox Barker Communications, which provides expert public relations, media and communications support to progressive candidates and causes. His legal career has included clerking for the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, working for the National Labor Relations Board and the United Steelworkers Union, and arguing numerous cases before federal and state appellate courts. He has also published works on Shakespeare, Samuel Beckett, and French avant garde drama, taught acting, drama and literature, and directed more than 50 plays. He is Artistic Director of Moving Target Theatre and has received an AFL-CIO Award for Meritorious Service for Commitment to Human Rights. He is also a member of the Executive Board of the Democratic Party of California. Michael is married and has one son, one dog, two cats, and five guitars. He is currently directing the play "In Darfur" by Winter Miller.

JULY 2, 2009 3:35PM

Democracy: What the Founders Knew But We've Forgotten

Rate: 10 Flag

One of the foundational principles of American democracy is under attack.

When the nation’s Founders crafted the United States Constitution in 1787, they were careful to include a requirement that:

“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.” (Art I, Sec. 6, Clause 1).

A similar provision for compensation applies to the president:

“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.” (Art II, Sec. 1, Clause 7).

constitution

The Founders understood that providing compensation for the new government’s elected officers was not a trivial matter, but an essential and cutting edge principle of the new democracy that they were striving to create -- and one that directly and profoundly affected the kind of people who would be willing and able to serve as representatives of the people.

They knew too that no other nation on earth insisted on compensation for its elected officials.

In England, members of parliament as a rule served without pay.  In colonial America, candidates for public office usually followed the practice of their English counterparts and promised to serve without compensation.  In the states themselves, only Pennsylvania provided for “wages” from the “state treasury” to “all lawmakers.”

The Founders knew that this English aristocratic practice of not paying public officers created an enormous disadvantage for less wealthy candidates who could not afford to serve without receiving an adequate income for their efforts.

The Founders did not want public service to be a genteel avocation reserved for men of independent wealth, as it was in England, but wanted instead to create a system in which – as James Madison said – public office would be open to “those who have the most merit and least wealth.”

Fueled by the rhetoric of anti-government and anti-egalitarian demagogues (mostly in or allied with the Republican Party), this foundational and deeply American egalitarian principle is now under attack in this country – especially in California, where voters are responding to the state’s budget crisis by cutting the salaries of legislators and city officials, and where our billionaire governor constantly rails against legislative salaries and supports a 10 percent pay cut in legislative compensation.

But as the Founders knew – and we clearly have forgotten – adequate compensation for public officials is an essential element of a democratic government.

Cutting the salaries of public officials will mean that only the rich will able to serve – and when only the rich can serve, we will have the opposite of the government that Madison envisioned – one in which our representative have “the most wealth and the least merit.”

The Founders would not be pleased that the people are now so willingly – even eagerly – abandoning one of the fundamental principles of the American democracy that they fought to create.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
I would most certainly think that members of the Legislature in California are over-compensated. They are full time, professional politicians paid enough where the incentive is to continue to be re-elected in order to maintain the largesse.
What is Melissa's position on this?
Good point. As long as the potential for bribery is scrutinized, and other compensation is disallowed or at least made completely transparent. It seems like more than a few legislators retire with significantly greater wealth than what their legislative salaries would have supported.
Excellent post, as usual. Rated.
Cutting legislative salaries will move the California budget an iota toward resolution.

No one thinks that it would.

Rather, cutting legislative salaries would be a purely symbolic act – and as symbolism it reinforces the false idea that the legislators (or rather the Democrats in the legislature) are to blame for the budget crisis.

As a matter of fact, the legislature has passed a budget – more than once.

The problem – and the only reason that we do not have a budget right now — is that our Republican Governor insists on vetoing the budgets that the legislature passes.

Anti-government forces — a new breed of Tories with a deep distrust of representative government — have captured the California Republican Party.

And they are only too happy to see chaos and catastrophe in Sacramento.

Especially when the blame can be placed on the legislature and, by extension, on representative government in general.

The Founders — who staked their lives and liberty to secure for us a heritage of representative government — would have been appalled by the Governor and the new Tories of the California Republican Party masquerading as protectors of the people.
Excellent piece of historical reporting, Michael, and interesting take on it using Califonia's current situation.
Rated