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.

