Contraceptives and Campaign Contributions

Dear Barry,

I can’t believe that it’s been almost a month since I last wrote you.  Have you missed me?  I’m writing today to both compliment and also criticize a couple of decisions you and your administration have recently made.

On the plus side, I think that the administration’s insistence that sectarian social service providers include contraception in their employees’ health insurance plans is correct, but not for the reasons some of your supporters have put forth.

Let me begin by acknowledging that faith-based social service plays a crucial and laudable role in assisting society’s weakest clients.  Historically, sectarianism has fulfilled a special role in caring for those in need.  It has been long understood that many people feel more comfortable seeking assistance from agencies rooted in their own religious or ethnic communities.  Religiously-based old age homes are the clearest evidence of this propensity.  As a consequence, many service providers structure their institutions around the rites and practices of the sponsoring community.  Although the environment of such agencies may be to a degree sectarian or ethnic, a condition for public support is that they welcome needy clients regardless of background.  In such circumstances, government recognizes as permissable limited particularist practices even though the sponsoring sectarian agency receives government support (e.g., nursing home, Medicare, Medicaid reimbursements, etc.).  What government does not allow, however, is discrimination in service provision.  Social service agencies can neither favor nor discriminate against an individual because of his/her ethnic or religious affiliation.  By accepting public support, social service agencies thereby become agents of government and agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the state.

Non-discrimination, however, is not the same as coercion.  While a Jewish nursing home will provide kosher meals, it cannot insist that the residents practice kashrut in their personal lives.  Similarly – and now I’m finally getting to the point – institutions can be rooted in certain ethical values and beliefs but cannot, unless it is illegal to do otherwise, insist that either service recipients or service providers (i.e., employees) adhere to these same core convictions.  Now let me be specific.  Far from being illegal, contraceptive services are legal and readily available in our country.  Until such time as the law changes (God forbid!), it is the decision of individuals, not of institutions that function in the public sphere, to partake of or refuse to use contraception.  

I guess what I’m trying (rather long-windedly) to say is that the argument I’ve heard from some pro-choice advocates supportive of your decision, which asserts that contraceptive services are more important than religious convictions, is misplaced.  While I happen to agree with that, the stronger argument is that it is a legal – if not a Constitutional – requirement that sectarian agencies abide by the law of the land when functioning in the public interest.  While the Catholic Church (and others) can advocate changes in law and policy, its social service arm is beholden to follow these in its relationship with both clients and employees.  In some sense, the circumstance at work here recalls the old adage, “Who takes the King’s gold, lives by the King’s rules.”

And that brings me to my criticism.  I am disappointed that your campaign has agreed to establish a Super PAC.   In justifying the decision to move forward on this, Jim Messina, your campaign manager, explains that, “We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back. . . .Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”  I would argue that, far from fighting with one hand tied behind its back, your campaign is holding two hands above its head, signaling surrender.  You’re surrendering to the basest, most venal instincts in American politics today, succumbing to an addiction to money, influence peddling, and access to special privilege and favor by the monied few too often to the detriment of the greater good.  The list of individuals reportedly engaged in the effort to establish Priorities USA Action (a terrible idea deserves a terrible name!) includes men and women intimately involved either in your administration or your reelection effort.  This chorus practically sings the shameless hypocrisy of the supposed separation of a Super PAC from a campaign.

Now, let’s be practical.  My flamboyant rhetoric aside, I’m afraid that this decision by your campaign will make your reelection that much harder.  In my judgment, it will deeply complicate efforts to bring on board the Independents, those who were the key to your election in 2008.  The genius of your earlier campaign was not only the breadth of your vision for the country but also the width and depth of commitment that you created within your base of support.  And you achieved that by not participating in the federal election system, by going your own way.  Sadly, you seem to be turning your back on what worked so well for you last time around.  As today’s Times article begins, “President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to [a Super PAC], reversing a long-held position. . . .”  In the face of the anticipated and unlimited spending by fat cats through the Super PAC, the $25, $50, and $100 donor is likely to feel him/herself becoming first marginalized, then invisible, then extinct.  They, and the non-donors who so enthusiastically came out to the polls on your behalf, will need to be courted assiduously this time around, especially in light of the continuing strain under which so many of them continue to live.  I fear that, having decided to go the Super PAC route, you will need to work that much harder to energize your base.  Maybe PUSAA will do that?  Always a possibility, of course, but the generally negative thrust of Super PAC ads to date doesn’t leave one feeling greatly optimism.

Sorry to have gone on so long, and I promise to write again sooner.  I know you have more important things to do other than sit around and read this stuff.

Respectfully,

Larry

February 7, 2012