100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

January 28, 2020 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Alanna Berger
Brittany Bowman
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Cheryn Hong

Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo

Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang

ERIN WHITE
Managing Editor

Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ELIZABETH LAWRENCE
Editor in Chief
EMILY CONSIDINE AND
MILES STEPHENSON
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

JENNY GURUNG | COLUMN

The importance of the Asian American vote

O

ver winter break, I binged
the
recent
season
of
“Patriot Act with Hasan
Minhaj” on Netflix. In one episode,
“Don’t Ignore the Asian Vote in
2020,” Minhaj sat down with
presidential candidates to discuss
why Asian Americans — despite
being one of the fastest-growing
racial populations — are severely
underrepresented
in
politics.
During the 2018 midterms, Asian
Americans made up only 3 percent
of the electorate. However, Asian
Americans make up 10 percent of
the electorate in competitive swing
states like Nevada and Virginia,
and they are expected to make up 5
percent of the 2020 electorate. This
will likely have a lot of influence in
the 2020 elections, especially with
the currently crowded Democratic
primary field.
The historical lack of outreach to
Asian Americans has contributed to
low voter registration and turnout.
Andrew Yang, entrepreneur and
presidential candidate, admits the
problem is that politicians didn’t
reach out to Asian Americans.
According to a 2018 Asian American
Voter Survey by AAPI Data, the
majority of Asian Americans had
little to no contact from Democrats
or
Republicans.
This
includes
community
organizations
and
individual candidates. The reality of
a majority-white party that depends
mostly on voters of color, yet lacks
the resolution to reach out to these
communities, has become clear.
Candidates like Yang and former
candidates like Sen. Cory Booker,
D-N.J., Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.
and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii,
encourage the public to engage in
politics by showing that Asians
and people of color can be political
leaders as well.
The overall underrepresentation
of people of color in politics was clear
on the all-white Democratic debate
stage in January. A once diverse
primary field has shrunk down to
only three non-white Democratic
candidates. Even Yang, who has

been consistently polling within
the top seven candidates and raised
over $15 million during the third
quarter, didn’t make the cut for the
debate. The solution, though, isn’t
necessarily having more candidates
and politicians of color. The problem
itself, as explained by Eugene Scott
from the Washington Post, is that
most of the issues “discussed at the
debate — including health care, the
economy and the environment —
are race-related.” And yet, people of
color, especially Asian Americans,
are left out of the conversation. These
issues concern and most significantly
affect people of color, compared to
white Americans, but candidates
fail to show devotion to getting these
communities involved.
In
his
episode,
Minhaj
interviews
Asians
in
New
York City, and they voice their
concerns related to “immigration,
student loans and small business.”
Having grown up in NYC, I have
seen first hand that Asian-owned
businesses dominate the city, from
cafes to restaurants to salons.
The Census Bureau reported
that “between 2007 and 2012,
the number of U.S. businesses
owned by Asian-Americans rose
23.8 percent.” This growth is 10
times more than that of all United
States firms over the same period.
Asians will arguably benefit the
most from a strong economy
and, as a growing voting block,
can influence economic policies.
This can be seen in the 2018
midterm elections, a year where
immigration was — and currently
is — a widely debated topic. The
voter turnout rates for both U.S.-
born and naturalized Asians, the
second-largest immigrant group,
were up by more than 10 percent
compared to 2014.
Asian American voter turnout
rates have always lagged behind
those of other racial groups. It
is estimated that about 3 in 10
eligible Asian voters cast ballots
in 2018 despite there being a
whopping nine million eligible

voters. However, today’s second-
generation Asians, like Andrew
Yang, are getting involved in politics
and the younger Asian American
generations are becoming eligible to
vote. Hopefully, we can encourage
Asian participation in politics
and remind politicians that we
are part of the conversation as
well. As a Democratic-leaning
block, the Asian American vote
definitely isn’t one to be ignored
in the Democratic primaries and
the upcoming election.
I recently had the chance
to listen to Edie Goldenberg,
professor of political science and
public policy at the University of
Michigan. In 2017, she helped start
the Big Ten Voting Challenge, a
non-partisan initiative dedicated
to increasing voter registration
and
turnout
among
college
students across college campuses.
At the University, Goldenberg
started the student group, Turn
Up Turnout (TUT), to increase
voter registration and turnout
among
all
communities
on
campus. The Edward Ginsberg
Center for Community Service
and Learning is spearheading the
efforts through student-driven
tabling at campus-wide events
and orientation, panel discussions,
workshops
and
social
media
campaigns.
As younger generations begin
to outvote older generations,
we as young voters need to
start addressing the problems
of
underrepresentation
and
involvement in politics not
only among Asians, but other
racial groups. We can start
by registering to vote and
reaching out to all of our
communities,
starting
with
our peers. We can get involved
and volunteer with TUT, or do
our own part by registering
to vote before the democratic
primaries.

SAM FOGEL | COLUMN

Citizens United — a catalyst for corruption
I

n
mid-January,
the
United States had the
pleasure of celebrating
the 10-year anniversary of the
controversial Citizens United
v. Federal Election Committee
Supreme Court case. The
case
was
filed
against
the FEC by the political
action
committee
Citizens
United over regulations on
funding
and
restrictions
on
advertisements
before
elections.
The
Bipartisan
Campaign
Reform
Act,
or
BCRA,
prevented
corporations
or
special
interest groups from funding
political advertising through
their
general
treasury.
The
District
Court
for
Washington,
D.C.
upheld
the law, but the case was
appealed
and
overturned
in
the
Supreme
Court.
Corporations had the same
rights as individuals when it
came to spending money on
campaigns, it was decided.
In the decade since the case
was decided, the political
landscape
has
morphed
into
something
entirely
unrecognizable.
In
the
2010
midterm
elections,
campaign
expenditures
skyrocketed
from $64 million to $294
million. Nearly half of that
money came from newly-
formed
Political
Action
Committees (PACs) that are
able to conceal their donors.
This “dark money” had been
present since Buckley v. Valeo
in 1976, a Supreme Court
case that eased disclosure
requirements
for
political
donations. But, in the wake of
the Citizens United decision,
these donations now have
a sheen of legitimacy. The
numbers continue to rise, and
over a billion dollars were
spent on advertisements for
the 2018 midterms.
The years following the
decision also gave rise to
a
new
group
of
donors.
Although this group is small
in
number,
they
have
a
disproportionate sway over
the electoral process. Out of
the $4.5 billion dollars raised
by super PACs in the past
eight years, $1 billion came
from only 11 people, who are
from both Republican and
Democratic
backgrounds.
Funnily
enough,
two
of
the men on the list were
Michael Bloomberg and Tom
Steyer, both of whom are
now running for president.
Bloomberg spent a record
$100
million
dollars
in
a
month,
furthering
the
financial bar for entry.
The shockwaves the ruling
sent through the legal system
are even felt in the chaos

of the Trump impeachment
trial. Lev Parnas, one of
Rudy
Giuliani’s
associates
and one of the figures central
to the Ukraine controversy,
apparently cozied up to the
Commander in Chief at an
event held by the president
for donors to Trump’s PAC,
America First Action. The
donations came through via
a limited liability company to
conceal the identity of Parnas
and his cohort, Igor Fruman.
Through this, he was able
to begin negotiations with
Trump
about
the
Biden
investigation
and
the
obstruction of the American
ambassador
to
Ukraine,
Marie
Yovanovitch.
The
Citizens United case allowed
Parnas to conceal his true
intentions and easily stay
under the radar.

A
few
more
examples
of dark money in politics
compromising officials can
be seen in the reluctance to
combat price-fixing in the
medical industry and the utter
incompetence in legislating
big
tech.
In
2019,
the
industry that spent the most
on lobbying was the health
sector, coming in at about
$594 million. A majority of
that was spent on combating
legislation
that
involved
price
control
on
certain
drugs, while another sum of
it was spent on combating
the
Trump
administration
agenda
to
decrease
drug
prices. The industry’s efforts
to stall regulations stings in
the face of the absurd and
unaffordable
pricing
for
prescription drugs.
In
terms
of
tech,
companies like Facebook and
Google have been investing
heavily in lobbying. Their
spending has been ramping
up in the face of privacy
concerns and unfair market
practices, obviously trying
to
influence
lawmakers
to get off their proverbial
backs.
It’s
incredibly
difficult to fully gauge how
much Capitol Hill has been
compromised
by
lobbying
and dark money, but the
mere fact that we have to
consider the prospect is the
impetus to reform.

Despite
the
frustrating
state of campaign finance,
one
thing
rings
true.
Americans overwhelmingly
want to see a decrease in
political spending. In 2018,
Pew Research determined
that 77 percent of people
believe there should be limits
in place on expenditures.
It’s a bipartisan conviction,
with 71 percent of right-
leaning
people
and
85
percent
of
left-leaning
people supporting limits on
money in politics. Recently,
we’ve
seen
candidates
denounce
donations
from
PACs of questionable origin.
Candidates for president have
shown it’s indeed possible to
sustain a race on small donors.
Candidates Elizabeth Warren
and Bernie Sanders have both
sworn
off
PAC
donations
altogether,
each
raising
millions of dollars. Despite
jokes about his wine cave
fundraiser,
Pete
Buttigieg
has raised nearly half of
his $50,000,000 from small
individual
contributions
of $200 or less. Grassroots
campaigning
has
become
more and more popular.
Tides are changing, but the
influence Citizens United has
had on the way politicians
approach fundraising is clear.
Dark money is sickeningly
pervasive, keeping us guessing
about whether or not our
elected
officials
serve
the
people
or
special
interest
groups.
Constituents
have
noticed and are trying to
combat that with campaigns
that draw from smaller donors.
Large scale donors have upped
the scale to match, with players
like Michael Bloomberg and
Tom
Steyer
quite
literally
buying
themselves
a
bid
for the nomination. It’s only
been a decade, but the nature
of
campaigning
has
been
irrevocably warped.
That doesn’t mean all is lost:
There are still things that people
can do to help. Phonebank
for or donate to smaller-scale
campaigns, contact your local
representatives to voice your
concerns and stay aware of
how your favorite politicians
make their money. The website
opensecrets.org keeps track of
all funds spent by politicians
on campaigning, making it
incredibly easy to hold them
responsible
for
their
allegiances. In the face of
overwhelming odds, it is of
the utmost importance that
you stay vigilant and stop our
democracy from crumbling
under the pressures of the
corporate elite.

Sam Fogel can be reached at

samfogel@umich.edu.

REID DIAMOND | COLUMN
Nuclear power — bridging the divide on climate legislation
N

uclear power remains
the
United
States’
largest carbon-neutral
source of energy, and in order
to
transition
to
a
carbon-
neutral
economy
by
mid-
century, we must increase our
reliance on nuclear power. In
contrast with the majority of
environmental propositions to
date, nuclear power has strong
potential for bipartisan support,
stemming from demands for
carbon neutrality as well as
demands for national security.
As such, a revival in nuclear
power is the only realistic way
to bridge the political divide
on climate legislation in the
U.S. and catalyze an approach
to the climate crisis that is
proportional to its severity.
Support for nuclear investment
is diverse, and consequently
politically viable in a divided
congressional
environment.
Nuclear technology is pertinent
in both the industries of nuclear
power and nuclear weaponry,
meaning that the benefits of
nuclear investment are twofold.
Interests in carbon neutrality
and
interests
in
nuclear
deterrence
and
global
non-
proliferation are both satisfied
by investment in nuclear power.
According to every realistic
estimate,
nuclear
power
is
essential to reaching carbon
neutrality
by
mid-century
and staying below a rise in
temperature of two degrees
celsius. Meanwhile, in order to
remain at the forefront of global
nuclear policy, the U.S. must
build credibility by sustaining
nuclear
investment.
This
amalgam of political support is
perfectly exemplified by recent
bipartisan support for a bill
from the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources
for nuclear investment in energy
and military applications.
Almost
every
Obama-era
environmental regulation was
fought to the bitter end by
Republican congressmen, and
President Donald Trump began
his onslaught of environmental
deregulation almost as soon as
he was inaugurated. But that
narrative isn’t holding true
with nuclear power. Trump
even claimed that the country
must “reinvigorate the entire
nuclear fuel supply chain,”
claiming that the U.S. should

pursue
“national
security
and non-proliferation goals.”
Obviously, Trump’s motives
are
rooted
in
national
security goals, but the ends
justify the means. Nuclear
power is a bipartisan enigma,
and in order to realistically
reach carbon neutrality in
the U.S., green energy goals
must reorient around nuclear
power.
While the support for nuclear
power is diverse and bipartisan, it
isn’t quite broad enough to enter
mainstream
political
views.
Parroting of outdated arguments
has trapped many politicians
in an echo chamber of nuclear
neglect.
Even
presidential
hopefuls are stuck in this fallacy.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren,
D-Mass.
and former Vice President Joe
Biden all reject nuclear power
as they confidently cite outdated
evidence. The fact is that new
technology in the industry
makes nuclear power safer,
cheaper and better for the
environment than it was even a
decade ago, and politicians need
to wrap their heads around
this change. The barriers to
any significant deployment of
nuclear energy aren’t technical
or scientific, they’re purely
political and social.
Some may argue against
nuclear
energy
because
of
concerns about safety or cost-
effectiveness. To start, nuclear
incidents have been few and
far
between.
With
17,000
cumulative years of reactor
operation
worldwide,
only
three major incidents have
occurred.
Yet in the radioactive wake of
Fukushima, political skepticism
of nuclear power heightened,
and nuclear legislation became
taboo. The nuclear industry
is still rebuilding its public

image after nearly a decade
of political neglect. But new
nuclear
technologies
have
undeniably
made
nuclear
power a safer option, and
political
perceptions
are
slowly shifting as well. Due
to
growing
demands
for
carbon neutrality and national
security, accompanied by safer
technologies, politicians are
slowly regaining confidence in
nuclear power. To bolster the
credibility of nuclear energy,
future
nuclear
legislation
must
include
these
new
technological
advancements
that address the perceived
concerns
regarding
safety
and efficiency. This requires
significant
investment
in
existing reactor designs that
tout increased simplicity, and
thus increased safety and cost-
effectiveness.
If
we’re
serious
about
the significant reduction of
carbon emissions, we have
to be for the idea of nuclear
power. If we’re serious about
the maintenance of nuclear
deterrence and international
non-proliferation goals, we
have to be for nuclear power.
We need radical change and
we need it now. Though green
legislation is an extremely
partisan
issue,
receiving
almost
no
support
from
Republicans in Congress, the
widespread political support
for nuclear power makes it
the ideal path forward for the
U.S.
As a result of technological
advances that boast increased
safety
and
cost-effectiveness,
nuclear power is now both
economically and ecologically
practical.
Moreover,
in
this
treacherous
political
climate,
there’s no chance we can even
begin to address our situation
with partisan ideas. Nuclear
power
won’t
single-handedly
get us to carbon-neutrality by
2050, but it’s a giant leap in the
right direction. We need to stop
dreaming of a political utopia
and play the hand we were dealt.
In order to successfully address
the climate crisis in the U.S., we
must swiftly enact legislation that
significantly invests in the next
generation of nuclear power.

Reid Diamond can be reached at

reiddiam@umich.edu.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the

editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than

300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850

words. Send the writer’s full name and University

affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Political support
for nuclear power
makes it the ideal
path forward.

Americans
overwhelmingly
want to see
a decrease in
political spending.

Jenny Gurung can be reached at

jennygrg@umich.edu.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan