One of the themes of my new book SLAYING GOLIATH is that billionaires are disrupting education by buying control of school districts and states. That, in conjunction with the federal government’s mean-spirited and useless mandate for annual standardized testing (no high-performing nation tests every child every year in grades 3-8), has posed a mortal threat to public schools.
TIME magazine published an article showing how one of our best known billionaires, Michael Bloomberg, has undermined democracy by buying local school board races and making it impossible for local people to compete with his spending.
The article begins:
School board elections are usually local affairs, with candidates soliciting money from neighbors at pizza parties and dragging along friends to knock on doors and ask for votes.
That’s what Chris Jackson expected when he decided to run for the school board in Oakland, Calif., in 2016. He’d previously been elected to the board of the City College of San Francisco and thought he knew how to build the ground game to win in Oakland. He started gathering endorsements—from the state superintendent of public schools and city council members and the Alameda County Democratic Party—and began raising money, feeling optimistic about his chances. By October, he’d raised almost $12,000. But Jackson did not plan for Michael Bloomberg.
In October of 2016, a few weeks before the election, Bloomberg gave $300,000 to the political action committee sponsored by Go Public Schools Advocates, an Oakland-based nonprofit that supports charter schools. The committee, Families and Educators for Public Education, then spent $153,000 in support of James Harris, Jackson’s opponent. Dwarfed by funding, Jackson watched as the PAC paid for web ads and campaign literature and phone banking for Harris, and then as it posted an attack ad about Jackson on Facebook. “It’s so disappointing to work hard, gather volunteers, and then see an out-of-towner like Bloomberg drop hundreds of thousands of dollars and just win through no effort but money,” Jackson, a special-education teacher in Oakland, says.
Bloomberg was not the only donor to Families and Educators for Public Education, but his $300,000 stands out. In the campaign-finance records, there are pages upon pages of donors who gave $10 or $25 apiece; the second-biggest contribution on the filing in which Bloomberg’s donation was disclosed was $250 from a retiree. “There’s no way outsiders should have more speech in Oakland than the actual residents and voters do,” Jackson says.
A couple of years ago, the Network for Public Education Action published a report documenting how billionaires are hijacking local and state school board elections. They flood the races with money, making it impossible for a local person to compete. In most cases, they buy elections in districts and states where they are not residents. There are also organizations like Democrats for Education Reform (hedge fund managers) who bundle money and make huge donations from their members who also do not live in the districts.
Bloomberg is not the only billionaire playing this anti-democratic game. There are also the Walton family, Eli Broad, Bill Gates, Doris Fisher (Banana Republic and the GAP), John Arnold (ex-Enron), and Reed Hastings (Netflix).
What is the goal of all this money? Electing school board members who are committed to opening new charters and fighting any accountability for existing charters.
Say it for what it is: It is an attack on our democracy by the monied elite. It allows them to buy what they want, instead of respecting voters’ wishes.
The principle of one man, one vote dies when money swamps elections.
As a postscript, may I express my delight to see the new TIME coverage of education. We used to get adoring portraits of Michelle Rhee and attacks on teachers from TIME. No more. Now they are looking at the attack on democracy by billionaires.
More people are catching on to how billionaires are manipulating our public policies. This new awareness is causing some billionaire backlash. The campaigns of Bernie and Warren have highlighted how billionaires use their wealth like a steam roller to crush any opposition to their agenda. The Trump administration has revealed what a billionaire administration will do with its power. Naked capitalism is on full display for all to see. The rise of the billionaires has helped fuel the popularity of the two progressive candidates. So far, Bloomberg’s media blitz has failed to convince most people that he is the right person to lead our country. Our extreme income inequality is a reason that our democracy is under constant threat from the billionaire class.
I just read about an initiative by Bernie supporters called “BerntheDNC.” There is growing concern that Bloomberg is working with the DNC to once again usurp the super delegates. Perhaps this is the reason Steyer and Buttigieg decided to “take one for the team” before super Tuesday? This is from ‘Common Dreams.’ This group is proposing a peaceful protest to shut down the convention, if the DNC tries to rig the outcome.
Now—as we stare down the barrel of 2020—we can see a DNC ready to engage in new and improved rigging methods, or even just toss out the primary elections altogether as 84 of 93 Superdelegates interviewed this week by the New York Times are entertaining. Indeed, just look at the recent Iowa Caucus app fiasco or how Bloomberg is hiring superdelegates and state Democratic Party vice chairs to work for his campaign, and you can almost smell the greasy traces of 2016 polluting 2020 like a burst pipeline of corrupt toxic sludge.https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/01/progressives-planning-bernthednc-mass-nonviolent-civil-disobedience-if-democratic
retired teacher,
I really do not get the logic here. Bloomberg’s entry into the race hurts BIDEN, not Bernie Sanders. Bloomberg hiring superdelegates to work for his campaign hurts Biden, not Bernie Sanders.
Next rumor will be that Elizabeth Warren is remaining in the race and entered the race for the sole purpose of hurting Bernie Sanders and she is a secret right wing operative for the DNC.
At some point it is imperative to democracy that both sides accept the rules. Elizabeth Warren made a good point at the debate — the rules on superdelegates were what Bernie wanted — some people have amnesia about how HRC actually had more votes than Bernie before the super delegates were included. After 2016, the Sanders people did not want an automatic victory going to the person with the most primary votes if that person did not have the majority — and they assumed that rule would advantage them. That rule still may advantage them. And if it does advantage them, that is great – Bernie will be the nominee. But if it doesn’t and someone else is the nominee, that is the fair outcome.
But it is not right to insist on changing the rules in the middle of a contest because you realize that the rules you thought would advantage you may not.
It may turn out that Bernie wins more of primary votes without clearing 50% on the first ballot. It may turn out that Biden wins more of the primary votes without clearly 50% on the first ballot. But it is undemocratic for anyone to support this rule only if it happens to benefit the candidate that they prefer and opposing it if it benefits the candidate they don’t prefer.
If it comes down to Biden and Bernie being the top two vote getters in the primary total, and one of them has 42% of the vote and the other has 44% of the vote, does everyone agree that whichever candidate has 44% should get the nomination?
If the answer to that is “it depends on which candidate has the 42% and which has the 44%”, then that is not democracy.
In 2003, the business community effectively took over the St. Louis City school board by electing four candidates in a roughly 20 candidate field by having a lot of money for their 4 candidate slate. They took a district that was a tiny bit short of full accreditation and drove it to unaccredited. Pity that rich business people have not learned from history.
As I show in my book, nothing that the faux reformers has done has ever led to better education.
likely in the process that is how they garnered even more riches
It couldn’t be clearer. The billionaire funders of misnamed “education reform” do not want democracy, or equity, or integrated schools. They do not want high quality education for all for life, work, and citizenship. Only vote for politicians who do.
and we must do our best to clearly publish the exact education platform of any would-be candidate: often it is simply a bypassed subject
“OUR” DEMOCRACY???
Beyond “Public schools are the foundational cornerstone of our democracy”,
what is the point of calling a matrix of instituions, that obviously work in the
service of the monied class, our democracy?
IF equality under the law IS a hallmark of democracy,what part of monied class
privilege, SANCTIONED by law, is democracy?
What is the point of “blaming the victim”-voter incompetence, when the vote of
“we the people” has NEVER undermined the ceded power of UNELECTED
“dictators” calling the shots?
What is the point of claiming (fill-in) is undermining or attacking “our democracy”
when Democracy IN NAME ONLY, is obvious?
I hate that Bloomberg is hell bent on buying the democratic party. That is his objective, create a Bloomberg version of the party of Trump, willing to follow Mike’s money and not so subtle bribery.
The issues in this election go well beyond education. Brick has a good point: “IF equality under the law IS a hallmark of democracy, what part of monied class privilege, SANCTIONED by law, is democracy? ”
I do not have any easy answer. Those of us working on behalf of public education should recognize that even if Mike is not a candidate, he will have tried to buy positions in the party that will enable him to function as a version of Trump. Loyalty will be expected in exchange for money.
Trump has packed the courts and deliberately eroded almost every institution that might safe guard democracy. We are beyond riding down on a slippery slope. Read this.
https://verdict.justia.com/2020/03/02/d-c-circuit-dismissal-of-congressional-subpoena-lawsuit-further-erodes-american-democracy?utm_source=verdict-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-03-02&utm_content=text-view-in-browser-1
Thanks, Laura. I read this. It is breathtaking. Any pretense of being a constitutional originalist is stripped bare and exposed by this decision. The Emperor has no clothes.
It’s beginning to smell like Germany in 1932.
Do not miss the piece that ProPublica published today about Bloomberg and the Sackler family of opioid infamy. When the Sackler family got in trouble for getting really wealthy by killing a couple of hundred thousand Americans, who did they turn to for help?
Hint: that billionaire’s name starts with a “B” who does not like the media revealing the private lives of infamous billionaires. To “B,” infamous billionaires deserve their privacy.