Berkeley Political Review Spring 2014

Berkeley Political Review

Interstate Egg War

Pot politics

Frats, co-ops, and compromise

Pop-Putin

volume xiiI, nO. 1 / Spring 2014

Baseball Diplomacy

EDITOR’S NOTE

MASTHEAD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Elena Kempf DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Matthew Symonds

Dear Reader, This editorial note is a personal story, because I think it contributes to a broader discussion that is presently occurring on campus. The issue I am referring to is the increase in out-ofstate and international student enrollment over the past years.

I will not argue for or against it, but rather try to communicate my personal reaction to the current situation.

Three years ago, I came to UC Berkeley as an international student from Germany. I did not have family in the United States, and came to Cal for its reputation, academics, and a sensibility that if my family was to pay for an expensive American college education, our tuition money should support a cause that was very dear to me: public education. In fact, my time at Berkeley these past three years has increased my appreciation of public higher education.

It had not been as apparent in Germany, where the first bachelor’s degree is—with the exception of around 500 euros/semester in one of the federal states—free of charge to students. My goal here is not to paint an idealized picture of Germany’s public universities. They are grappling with their own set of problems. What I do want to say, though, is that I did not come to UC Berkeley with the intention of making our school less public—quite the opposite.

So, I understand when people such as Chancellor Dirks in his campus-wide e-mail from April 18, 2014 justify this year’s admissions data—and its contribution to increase international and out-of-state enrolment from currently 20 percent to 23 percent over the next three years—by pointing out that out-of-state and international student enrolment is crucial due to their exorbitantly higher tuition. The Chancellor did note the benefit that we “as a campus and as an intellectual community” benefit from a geographically diverse student body. Nonetheless, in general the e-mail read as an apology for the presence of non-Californians at UC Berkeley. As I pointed out before, I sympathize with this.

Perhaps my reaction would not be that different if a similar trend occurred in Germany.

I want to conclude this subjective reflection with an appeal to the international and outof-state students out there. When we come here, we are given the incredible opportunity to become members of a new community. Embrace your new home, make American friends, and learn about new things you never thought would interest you. Make an effort to be more than UC Berkeley’s cash cow, and your experience here will be so much more rewarding for it.

With this, I hope that you—whether you are a California resident, U.S. citizen, or international student—will read this issue of the Berkeley Political Review with an eye towards embracing the diversity of viewpoints that make UC Berkeley so remarkable.

Sincerely,

Elena Kempf Editor-in-Chief

MANAGING EDITOR Tanay Kothari DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR Nikhil Kotecha BAY AREA EDITOR Maria Buxton CALIFORNIA EDITOR Allison Arnold DEPUTY CALIFORNIA EDITOR Maria Buxton U.S. EDITOR Viveka Jagadeesan DEPUTY U.S. EDITOR Claire Kaufman WORLD EDITOR Ada Lin DEPUTY WORLD EDITOR Abhik Kumar Pramanik OPINION EDITOR Tina Parija DEPUTY OPINION EDITOR Carrie Yang ONLINE EDITOR Anna Bella Korbatav DEPUTY ONLINE EDITOR Maria Salamanca DESIGN DIRECTOR Hilary Hess ADVISER Ethan Rarick STAFF Arshia Singh, Dash Stander, Edward Choi, Efe Atli, Gabriella Armato, Giacomo Tognini, Gloria Cheung, Jae Ho Li, Jared Haselton, John Vergara, Jordan Ash, Kevin Yao, Lani Frazer, Lindsey Lohman, Lucy Song, Madeleine Ayer, Mekhala Hoskote, Merrill Weber, Michael Clark, Olivia Jones, Ray Tang Hou, Rebecca Berman, Rita Hu, Sharon Licht, Shoumick Hassan, Sophie Khan, Wendie Yeung ASUC sponsered.

The content of this publication does not reflect the view of the University of California, Berkeley or the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC). Advertisements appearing in the Berkeley Political Review reflect the views of the advertisers only, and are not an expression of the editorial opinion or views of the staff.

www.bpr.berkeley.edu

Berkeley Political Review Volume XIII, No. 1 / Spring 2014

Mekhala Hoskote

3

Sharon Licht

4

Madeleine Ayer

6

Dash Stander

7

Rebecca Berman

8

Jae Ho Lee

9

Sophie Khan

10

Merrill Weber

12

Gloria Cheung

13

Gabriella Armato

15

Giacomo Tognini

16

Arshia Singh

17

Jordan Ash

18

Priyanka Mohanty

20

Edward Choi

21

BAY AREA Berkeley’s new student district A fight for compromise and adequate representation CALIFORNIA Interstate egg war California vs. Missouri, Iowa, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Oklahoma Dire Straits What California’s worst drought on recod means for the state Save or spend?

Striking a balance between infrastrucutre investment and paying down debt Revisiting affirmative action California’s battle over educational opportunities U.S. Enemies of the state Do police officers need tanks and rocket launchers?

Pot politics Colorado and the roadmap to marajuana legalization Financial Fiasco Questioning the effects of campaigns on the undecided population WORLD

(COVER STORY) Baseball

diplomacy: a diamond in the rough?

Cuban baseball and politics Denmark: getting to the meat of the issue Denmark has banned Muslim and Jewish ritual slaughters The ring of fire: troubled seas Overlapping claims on valuable islands are inflaming tensions in southeast Asia Merkel’s response to NSA A separate European network

OPINION Pop-Putin A man, his name, and the Russian resurgence.

Discrimination and the voting rights act Has the supreme court decision to vote down section 4 made America more racist?

China’s costly inaction China has the power to utilize its vast economic leverage over North Korea Cover design by Edward Johnston.

www.bpr.berkeley.edu

BAY AREA

Frats, Co-ops, and Compromise Student communities struggle for adequate Political representation MEKHALA HOSKOTE

L

ast May, the Berkeley City Council passed a motion to consider a new student supermajority district. After the passage of Measure R, a ballot initiative that proposed redistricting, District 7 was chosen to include the university and the surrounding area where students live. Since almost 90 percent of District 7’s population will be between the ages of 18 and 29, its city councilmember is expected to be a student or someone who represents students’ interests.

Since the public announcement of the redistricting in late 2012, many groups have organized to propose geographic boundaries for the new districts. An organization called the Berkeley Student District Campaign (BSDC) has formed and assigned the district lines for the new District 7, which includes the University, housing on Southside, and sororities and fraternities.

However, the BSDC map does not encompass Northside, which includes three residential halls and nine housing cooperatives for a total of 16,000 students. In opposition to the BSDC, Stefan Elgstrand, a UC Berkeley senior and intern under Councilmember Kriss Worthington, created the United Student District Amendment (USDA) map that includes the Northside of campus. When City Council voted on this issue, the BSDC map won in a 6-3 vote.

The ASUC endorsed the BSDC map, but under secretive, undisclosing circumstances. As Executive Vice President and former Senator Nolan Pack said, “The External Affairs Vice President (EAVP) gave [Senators] one paper copy of the map [that] was passed around. He said that you couldn’t take the map with you because it is a secret. [On the map], you could hardly see the lines of the streets or what is where. So when the Senate voted on this map, it was this copy.

So we had to take the EAVP’s word that it did include students.”

Stefan Elgstrand claims that his map was not chosen because City Council said it was submitted late in the game. However, he says that his map was “simply an amendment to the BSDC map.” Elgstrand included Northside by “rearrang[ing] some blocks and took out apartments and mixed buildings south of Dwight Rd and put that population from Northside.”

He also took out mixed buildings that house students and long-term residents and replaced those with “dorms and co-ops that are 100% students.”

The disagreements over the new district lines spurred the formation of the Berkeley Referendum Coalition. The coalition rallied for 30 3 | Berkeley Political Review

days and succeeded by gathering over 5,400 signatures to stop the BSDC map from being implemented. Referendum supporters claim that without the inclusion of Northside in the district, students are not accurately represented.

Additionally, the Berkeley Referendum Coalition accuses the BSDC of gerrymandering. The new District 7 excludes the progressive housing cooperatives on the North side of campus, but includes the sororities and fraternities, which are relatively close to each other and both house students. Referendum supporters claim that these district lines are drawn to make District 7 more moderate.

BSDC supporters can argue that the North side and South side of campus have different atmospheres and are so different from each other

“Separating one side of campus from another effectively separates students, which complicates student representation and discriminates against students based on where they live” that they cannot be represented well together.

However, students live on both sides of campus and deserve representation. Separating one side of campus from another effectively separates students, which complicates student representation and discriminates against students based on where they live.

It is impossible to include all students in District 7. But as Nolan Pack put it, “We are not asking for every single student to be included, what we are asking is that communities of interest be united.” By combining communities of interest together, a political party’s voice will be unified instead of diffused, thus giving the party as much political power as possible.

However, the current distribution of students in different districts is dividing communities

of interest, thus minimizing their representation and making students a less powerful group in the city. Having a student district is a way to strengthen the influence of students in city government. However, excluding an enormous group of students does not help student representation. As Elgstrand said, “To only focus on one group of students would not be reflective of the community. The whole point of having a student district is to have all students represented rather than just the fraternities and sororities on Southside.”

However, the biggest problem with District 7 boils down to compromise and sacrifice. The City Council and the student community have to put its differences aside in order to receive representation. Since both want the same goal of student representation, it is in both groups’ interests to compromise to create a larger district. The BSDC map will be put on the November 2014 ballot. Currently, Councilmember Jesse Arguin has put forth the idea of citizens’ commission for redistricting to depoliticize the process.

The idea of having two districts representing the student body seems like a logical solution since Berkeley students make up 25% of the city’s population. Then, proportionally speaking, at least two of the nine city councilmembers should be representing students. Especially if one city councilmember does not adequately represent diverse opinions of students, two members would be better. This idea was originally part of the BSDC map, but was not implemented because incumbent councilmembers cannot be redistricted out of their own district.

It is important to note that a student district, although a step in the right direction, will not solve all of students’ problems. One student councilmember may bring more ideas to the table and result in better conversations, but will still have to face the majority of councilmembers who have moderate or conservative political views.

Interestingly, Berkeley attempted to create a student district a decade ago. Nolan Pack noted that the previous student district failed, “because the people involved in creating that map were unwilling to compromise with other interests and it was put on the ballot by a referendum, but did not pass. So it is an interesting parallel that we have not learned from our history.” History shows that now is the best time to compromise in order to preserve the possibility of a student district. ■

CALIFORNIA

Interstate Egg War California vs. Missouri, Iowa, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Oklahoma

Illustration by Edward Johnston

SHARON LICHT

C

Six years ago, California approved Proposition 2, a ballot measure stipulating that all California egg producers must raise egg-laying hens in cages that provide enough space for the hens to spread their wings.

In response to egg producers lamenting a competitive disadvantage compared to cheaper eggs produced in other states, the state legislature followed by passing a law in 2010 (AB 1437) requiring all eggs sold in the state to come from hens raised in these larger cages—regardless of origin. Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger defended AB 1437 as beneficial for California egg producers and animal welfare as a whole, according to a 2010 article in the SF Gate.

The legislation is set to take effect on January 1, 2015. Minimal attention was given to this victory for animal rights until last year, when Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) attempted to include a provision in the 2014 Farm Bill that would nullify laws like CA Proposition 2.

Although the clause did not make it into the final bill, California still faces controversy surrounding the legislation. Why are other states vehemently opposed to California increasing the standards for raising egg-laying hens?

The controversy stems from the fact that 38 million Californians constitute such a large portion of egg consumers, and thus play a vital role in the profitability of egg production nationwide.

Researchers at UC Davis claim the California

egg industry produces nearly 5 billion eggs per year, while Californians are estimated to consume nearly double that figure. Therefore, major egg-producing states like Iowa have a vested interest in keeping the California market open to their eggs. According to the United Egg Producers, a cooperative representing owners of 95 percent of U.S. egg-laying hens, approximately 80 percent of egg-laying hens are raised with 67 to 86 square inches of floor space per bird.

California’s new laws require at least 116 square inches of floor space per bird, and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) claims that 90 percent of U.S. eggs come from hens raised in cages that do not meet these standards.

This means that major egg-producing states would need to alter the vast majority of their facilities, costing millions of dollars, if they intend to continue selling eggs to Californians. As such, opponents’ main argument is that AB 1437 could distort the egg market by disabling egg producers in other states from selling their eggs to Californians. It is important to note, however, that the law applies to whole eggs imported into California, but not eggs used in processed foods. Experts estimate anywhere between 1020 percent of eggs consumed in California are imported whole eggs.

The issue has manifested in an interstate lawsuit: Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris. In December of 2013, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster vocalized his office’s intent to sue the

state of California for “attempting to nationalize its animal protection standards,” according to a recent AgriPulse article. Five other states have now joined Missouri in its legal battle: Iowa, Alabama, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. These six states are taking California to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that California’s legislation violates the Commerce Clause, a constitutional provision prohibiting any state from enacting legislation that regulates conduct wholly outside its borders, protects its own citizens from out-of-state competition, or places undue burdens on interstate commerce. A recent NPR article explains that the primary complaint is that egg producers will be excluded from the enormous California market unless they can invest millions to comply with California restrictions. Not only do the six states claim that AB 1437 damages their egg production industries, but they also focus on the law as a challenge to the federal right to regulate interstate commerce. The state governments worry that California animal welfare regulations could extend to pork and beef, which would further impact their ability to profit from California consumers.

The HSUS is seeking to file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In response to the six states’ concerns about AB 1437 setting an unconstitutional precedent for states regulating interstate commerce, the HSUS points out that overturning AB 1437 would set a different precedent: disBerkeley Political Review | 4

CALIFORNIA

-abling states from regulating agricultural products for public health reasons. According to the HSUS, ironic examples of agricultural regulations based on public health concerns include Nebraska’s restrictions on importing eggs and poultry, Oklahoma’s limits on the sale of particular exotic livestock, and Iowa’s import prohibitions on moving cattle with brucellosis.

It is clear why states like Iowa, the largest producer of eggs in the US, and Missouri, which sells approximately 540 million out of its 1.5 billion eggs to California annually, are concerned for the fiscal future of their egg industries.

However, as articulated by Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president and chief counsel for animal protection litigation at the HSUS: “These states are trying to force their sub-standard eggs on California consumers, even though the California legislature has declared such eggs to be repugnant to the state’s values and a threat to public health.” Lovvorn is referring to the cruel, inhumane conditions of the barren battery cages that 90 percent of egg-laying hens are raised in, which are also breeding grounds for Salmonella, according to the HSUS. Federal courts in California have typically ruled in favor of animal welfare in other cases challenging state laws defining humane treatment of livestock. The most recent example is when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California law prohibiting the sale of foie gras produced by force-feeding birds, which had been challenged as a violation of the Commerce Clause. Will this tendency continue for the humane treatment of egg-laying hens, or will the coalition against California’s legislation prove that the threat to interstate commerce overrides the need for this animal welfare reform?

Paying for infrastructure fixes right now would be cheaper than waiting until they are infrastructure problems and it would also stimulate the economy, providing jobs and revitalizing areas that are still hard-hit by the Great Recession.

The focus on paying down debts trades being able to more effectively deal with an economic downturn—by reducing future borrowing costs and being able to pull from a rainy day fund— for actually stabilizing the state’s economy and stimulating economic growth. Had Governor Brown decided to invest in infrastructure, then unemployment likely would have gone down and Gross State Product would have risen. In the long run these can be considered equal, but the choice to focus on debts has real distributional effects; there are people who would benefit from better roads, better water, and more MediCal right now. Many of the details of the budget, however, reveal that Governor Brown is likely aware of this, and include clever ways 5 | Berkeley Political Review

“The primary complaint is that egg producers will be excluded from the enormous California market unless they can invest millions to comply with California restrictions”

to save and stimulate growth at the same time.

Phasing out the costly Redevelopment Agencies and expanding Infrastructure Financing Districts (IFDs) will save approximately $2 billion in as many years, and use tax-increment financing (borrowing against increased property values) to give back local control to work on infrastructure spending.

In particular, this budget conveys a sense of a governor looking to leave his state better than he found it. When taken in context with reforms that allow a budget to be passed with a simple majority (instead of the super-majority that used to be required), these plans to pay down debts and create a rainy day fund seem attacks on California’s previous political dysfunction as much as anything. No longer “Moonbeam” Brown, the governor wishes to be the clear-eyed pragmatist who comes in and gets things done. For better or worse, that is exactly what he has done. ■

Egg production in the United States. National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Dire Straits What California’s worst drought on record means for the state MADELEINE AYER

C

alifornia is now in its third consecutive year of drought conditions, with 2014 set to be the driest year in what could be half a millennium. Bracing for dire straits, on January 17 Governor Jerry Brown announced that the state had entered a drought emergency, and urged all Californians to voluntarily curtail their water consumption by 20 percent.

These drought conditions highlight the fact that California now has insufficient water reserves to meet state consumption needs over a prolonged period of time. However, it is not only California that has been affected by this dry spell.

15 other western states are also experiencing drought or abnormally dry conditions. According to Professor B. Lynn Ingram, California’s drought could be a persisting trend, lasting up to centuries, due in part to the repercussions of worsening climate change and the geographical nature of the state.

California received approximately seven inches of water in 2013, compared to the average 22 inches. Reservoirs in the state are only 30 percent full and the Sierra snowpacks, which provide California with a third of its water supply, and are only at 12 percent of their normal water content. In order to reach average annual precipitation levels, California would have to undergo heavy rain or snowfall every other day until May according to the Department of Water Resources.

Some of the most worried victims of California’s water woes are the inhabitants of 17 communities that could run out of water within 100 days. These communities are mostly rural, ranging from ones in Santa Cruz County to Sonoma County, and may have to have water trucked in from other parts of the state to replenish their depleted wells and reservoirs. These communities are at particular risk for water contamination, as contaminants in groundwater are less likely to be diluted if there is less water. Other stricken communities have underground water banks saved.

Other ripple effects of the drought include ecological destruction, increased fire fre-

CALIFORNIA quency and intensity, threatened fisheries, and afflicted agricultural production. Farmers are left to fallow hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural land, threatening harvests, employment, and prices. During past droughts in the last decade, farm insurance and high global crop prices served as insulation for farmers, but due to the severity of this drought, resulting economic hardship is uncertain.

Currently, there are two legislative plans to address the drought, one from the House and one from the Senate, that highlight the deep partisan divide in the state.

The Republican-sponsored House plan permanently reallocates water from the environmentally-fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to Central Valley Farms. Democrats and environmentalists denounce it for its disregard for the Endangered Species Act, as it overrides protections for salmon and other threatened habitats. It is largely considered to be a Republican political strategy to propitiate their Central Valley constituents for the November elections. The GOP is increasingly falling out of favor with its Central Valley residents, many Hispanic, due to the party’s unsympathetic stance on immigration.

The Senate plan allocates $300 million to drought aid, including increasing flexibility in how water is pumped through the Delta, without lifting environmental protection restrictions.

The bill ultimately simplifies the purchase of water from other areas in the state and delays

federal contract payments, making it easier to transport water throughout California.

Jerry Brown, meanwhile, has unveiled a $687 million aid package to help assuage the water crisis. It will accelerate approval of long-term water conservation projects, provide emergency funds to towns running out of water, and earmark relief for unemployed farmers.

Others argue that mandatory conservation measures should be enacted given the urgency and extremity of the crisis. Tiered water-rate structures could be one such measure, which charge residents greater rates as their water use increases.

The UC Berkeley community is also attempting to reduce water consumption. Campus use of potable water is down 17 percent since 1990, but Chancellor Dirks nonetheless states, “The campus research on the severity of the drought overwhelmingly sends a clear call to action.” He sent an email to the campus community on February 5 asking students to consume less water daily by taking simple steps, like cutting shower time and reporting leaks. Since then, a public awareness campaign, “Every Drop Counts,” has been launched with more tips on individual ways to conserve (see sustainability.berkeley. edu). If everyone saved a gallon of water a day, weekly campus water usage would be reduced by 250,000 gallons. Dirks has also asked the campus Office of Sustainability to work with campus departments to intensify efforts for additional water efficiency. ■

“Other ripple effects of the drought include ecological destruction, increased fire frequency and intensity, threatened fisheries, and afflicted agricultural production”

California’s drought had real consequences for many parts of the state. Illustration by Edward Johnston.

Berkeley Political Review | 6

CALIFORNIA

Save or Spend? striking a balance between infrastructure investment and paying down debt DASH STANDER

T

he 2014-2015 fiscal year presents a novel problem for Governor Jerry Brown: how to spend more money than the state immediately needs. An excellent year for the stock market and continued revenue from Proposition 30 have provided Governor Brown with the opportunity to right California’s finances and invest in much needed infrastructure. This opportunity, however, is potentially short-lived, but the budget Governor Brown has recently proposed shows he intends to capitalize on it while it lasts.

The governor must propose a budget for the following fiscal year by January 10th each year. The budget includes the revenues and expenditures of the last two fiscal years as well as projected revenues and expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year (which begins in June). Since 2002, California’s debts have skyrocketed, first from the policies of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then because of the Great Recession, which reduced income from the state’s personal income tax (PIT) by 14 percent in 2009.

Insiders refer to the combination of bonds, payment deferrals (in which the state promises to pay money it owes to various government agencies at a later date), and unfunded pension obligations as “the wall of debt” because of its imposing size and the restrictions it places on feasible paths forward for the state. There are two pressing needs that any budget must attend to: the aforementioned “wall of debt” and the state’s crumbling infrastructure. Though Governor Brown’s budget attempts to balance both, it falls heavily on the side of paying down California’s debts.

The 2014-2015 budget includes many one-time payments of outstanding debts that were accrued during the last few years. $1.6 billion in Economic Recovery Bonds (ERBs) that were authorized by Proposition 57 in 2004 will be paid off a year ahead of schedule as well as another $1.6 billion for special fund bonds. The largest attack on the so-called “wall of debt” eliminates the entirety of the $6.2 billion in deferred payments to K-14 schools. Proposition 98 mandates a minimum level of funding for California schools, depending on the state of the General Fund and how much enrollment is predicted to grow. However, recently the government has deferred payments, forcing school districts to either borrow or suffer programmatic cuts. $2.3 billion to be transferred to the rainy day fund that was created in 2004 by Proposition 58 (and is currently empty), and there is a proposal to fix payments to the rainy day fund based on a percentage of personal income tax revenue. This is the most volatile revenue stream the state has and is responsible for the current influx of cash. Mandating that a portion of that revenue will go to a rainy day fund will smooth out some of the volatility and ensure that the state will continue to be able to meet its obligations even in down years.

The proposed budget also includes investments for California’s future, mostly by increasing and moving around funding for the school system. $4.5 billion will be spent on K-12 schools according to the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). This raises the amount of per pupil spending, with additional funding for English learning and low-income (EL/LI) students. If there are more than 55 percent EL/LI students in a district, each student above 55 percent receives yet more funding (see Figure 3). This expenditure closes about 28 percent of the extant gap between current school funding levels and those proposed by the LCFF, leaving the LCFF approximately 80 percent funded. There is also $355 million for California Community Colleges (CCC) to provide for enrollment growth as well as targeted spending on specific training programs. The base outlay for UC and CSU is expanded $142 million each with the express intent of 7 | Berkeley Political Review

preventing tuition increases. $107 million will go to the implementation of the Middle Class Scholarship Program. If the budget passes in June, these expenditures, combined with the deferred payments that school districts will receive, will provide a massive influx of cash for the state’s K-14 education. This will counteract the leveraging that occurred in many school districts throughout the state, and allow them to adequately address the needs of their residents. Though the LCFF will have some districts see their funding increase more than others, no district will receive less funding than it did under the old formula.

The rest of California’s infrastructure may not fare as well as the school system. There is a timely $618 million for expanding and integrating the state’s water infrastructure and $815 million for deferred maintenance on the state’s infrastructure as a whole. That $815 million is only a small percentage of the $64.6 billion in deferred maintenance that is owed. $250 million from cap and trade revenues is slated for the high speed rail project and $500 million in bonds was authorized to build new country jails. These are all projects that sorely need funding, in particular the jails which Governor Brown plans to use to reduce the pressure on California’s overcrowded and unconstitutional prison system. Governor Brown does not see these needs as pressing enough, however, even going so far as to assume within the budget that the courts will allow California two more years to address prison overcrowding.

This budget reflects Governor Brown’s commitment to place the state on firmer financial footing. He recognizes that PIT revenues are riding on an especially good stock market, particularly for California-based tech companies, as well as the revenue from Proposition 30, which is set to expire in 2018. Given the volatility of the stock market and how much political capital had to be expended to pass a tax increase like Proposition 30, this is the perfect opportunity to begin to pay down California’s considerable debts. This budget eliminates $21.8 billion of the state’s debt and puts it on track to be debt free by 2018. This plan, however, depends on a forecast of consistent (if slow) growth in California’s economy from now until then. These forecasts are notoriously difficult to make.

The Brown administration is weighing two competing desires: to pay down debts and increase California’s fiscal solvency or to invest in infrastructure to improve the economy right now. Either would save costs down the line. Having a smaller debt load would lower borrowing costs in the future, allow California to better handle another downturn, and reduce the amount of interest that the state will have to pay on its current debts. Paying for infrastructure fixes right now would be cheaper than waiting until they are infrastructure problems and it would also stimulate the economy, providing jobs and revitalizing areas that are still hard-hit by the Great Recession. The focus on paying down debts trades being able to more effectively deal with an economic downturn—by reducing future borrowing costs and being able to pull from a rainy day fund—for actually stabilizing the state’s economy and stimulating economic growth.

Though had Governor Brown decided to invest in infrastructure, then unemployment likely would have gone down and Gross State Product would have risen. In the long run these can be considered equal, but the choice to focus on debts has real distributional effects; there are people who would benefit from better roads, better water, and more MediCal right now. Many of the details of the budget, however, reveal that Governor Brown is likely aware of this, and include clever ways to save and stimulate growth at the same time. In particular, this budget conveys a sense of a governor looking to leave his state better than he found it.

When taken in context with reforms that allow a budget to be passed with a simple majority (instead of the super-majority that used to be required), these plans to pay down debts and create a rainy day fund seem attacks on California’s previous political dysfunction as much as anything. No longer “Moonbeam” Brown, the governor wishes to be the clear-eyed pragmatist who comes in and gets things done. For better or worse, that is exactly what he has done. ■

Revisiting Affirmative Action California’s battle over educational opportunities

REBECCA BERMAN

O

n Thursday, January 30, 2014 a proposed constitutional amendment passed through the Senate, and affirmative action became an issue of contention in California once again. Currently, California has strict prohibitions on considering race in educational opportunities, but SCA5, the proposed constitutional amendment, will remove such restrictions. This amendment will allow the state’s voters to reconsider affirmative action programs in the University of California and California State University systems on the November 2014 ballot.

SCA5 will remove affirmative action-related prohibitions that have been in place in California’s educational system since 1996. Such prohibitions were the result of a previous proposition, Prop 209, which kept state government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education. This restrictive proposition has mustered a variety of negative reactions among Californians, including that of Democratic Senator Ed Hernandez. As an opponent to Prop 209 and a proponent of SCA5, Senator Hernandez stated, “A blanket prohibition on consideration of race was a mistake in 1996, and we are still suffering the consequences from that initiative today.” If SCA5 passes, public universities in California will no longer be prohibited from giving preferential treatment in public education to individuals and groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

“Affirmative action” is a term that was first introduced by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 through Executive Order 10925. This Order required government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin,” but such provisions were first enforced through President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246. Both Executive Orders were meant to address discrimination that persisted in America, despite the presence of civil rights legislation and progress towards equality. The idea of “affirmative action” was to help underrepresented groups such as African Americans and Hispanics get jobs and educational opportunities in a system that otherwise often marginalizes such groups. It was originally meant to be a temporary initiative, as the US was expected to transform into a “level playing field” for the American people. Despite this, racism and sexism continued to exist in the educational system for decades.

While affirmative action seemed to benefit members of marginalized groups, many people saw problems with this program. For example, many white Americans asserted that affirmative action was causing “reverse discrimination,” through which they felt minorities were receiving preferential treatment over the white community. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) addressed this issue; in this court case, a white student named Allan Bakke had been rejected from UC Davis medical school twice, even though his grade point average was higher than that of many minority students who had been admitted to the school. Bakke felt that because of the provisions set up through affirmative action, students with minority-group backgrounds were receiving preferential treatment over him. The Court held Davis Medical School’s 16 percent minority admittance quota was discriminatory against Allan Bakke; thus, quotas were unconstitutional, but race could remain a factor in admissions.

Such backlash against affirmative action increased over the years, and

CALIFORNIA

led to the eventual passing of California Proposition 209 in 1996. In response to such restrictive measures, supporters of affirmative action such as historian Roger Wilkins have asserted the importance of such programs’ benefits for African Americans. Wilkins pointed out, “blacks have a 375-year history on this continent: 245 involving slavery, 100 involving legalized discrimination, and only 30 involving anything else,” hinting at the fact that a level playing field still does not exist in America.

Proponents of SCA5 contend that the amendment is a necessary step in tackling discrimination in California. Democratic Senator Ed Hernandez pointed out, “You cannot address inequality by refusing to acknowledge it,” referencing the perceived effects of Prop 209 on California’s educational system. Since Prop 209 passed, there has been a significant drop in the proportion of blacks and Latinos at the state’s top schools, including UC Berkeley and UCLA. Democratic Senator Ben Hueso said this proposition caused “a stark reduction in access to higher education by people of color,” briefly summarizing most Democrats’ reasoning in supporting SCA5. If SCA5 passes, it will not require a particular affirmative action program or quota. It will simply encourage the admittance of minority students into UCs and CSUs, which has declined since affirmative action was banned. Furthermore, it would only apply to the UC and CSU educational systems, not to employment opportunities in California.

While the amendment’s effects may seem ideal, many assert that it will simply enable reverse discrimination to disenfranchise other students.

Republican Senators such as Bob Huff assert that this amendment “actually allows our public schools to use race and gender and others to discriminate against students.” Such arguments have recently brought California’s ethnic-proportional issues to light—Blacks and Latinos are underrepresented, but many argue that white students are too, as Asian students dominate admissions at the state’s top schools and are “enrolled in numbers far greater than their proportion of California’s population.”

However, whether or not one agrees that white Americans are underrepresented in California’s higher education system, it is true that California no longer has a majority ethnic population, unlike in 1996 when Prop 209 passed. Thus, Democrats such as Sen. Ricardo Lara assert, “We need to ensure that the students reflect our changing population.” Some Senators, such as Republican Joel Anderson think representational issues are caused by other issues entirely, such as the lack of room for Californians in California’s schools. He suggests that the public universities should limit the acceptance of international students to UCs to better address admissionrelated issues.

What many politicians refuse to acknowledge is that California’s representational issues have deep roots in the state’s K-12 schools. Many children from minority-group backgrounds live in underprivileged neighborhoods with underfunded schools. They attend such schools for most of their lives and are denied sufficient academic resources simply due to insufficient funding for their education. Thus, by the time they apply for college, they end up not having the same academic standing as students who grew up elsewhere. Reinstating affirmative action will not fix this issue. It will not level the playing field in America, or address racial issues at their root.

To fix the problems at the upper levels of education, politicians will have to start at the bottom with funding for California’s K-12 schools.

By allocating more funds for K-12 schools in underprivileged neighborhoods, California politicians will allow such schools to have better programs and better resources for their students. Thus, marginalized students in underprivileged areas will grow up with educational opportunities that are equal to that of students in wealthier areas. This is a necessary step in equalizing the college admissions process, because it will allow students a closer-to-equal jumping off point when they apply to universities their senior year of high school. By ending wealth-related disparities in elementary, middle, and high schools, California’s politicians can make strides toward a solely merit-based college application process. ■ Berkeley Political Review | 8

U.S.

Enemies of the State

Do police officers need tanks and rocket launchers?

T

JAE HO LEE

wo years ago, the UC Berkeley administration took heavy fire for contemplating the purchase of a fully armored Lenco Bearcat for joint use by UCPD and Albany Police Department. Chancellor Robert Birgeneau concluded that a bullet proof, mine proof, eight-ton military vehicle was not necessary on the Berkeley campus. The $169,000 Homeland Security grant was turned down, and the campus police forwent the needlessly extravagant and potentially dangerous piece of machinery.

Just last summer, however, in more than 200 communities around the U.S., local police have received their own Lenco Bearcats and other armored vehicles, courtesy of the Department of Homeland Security. Since the September 11th bombings, 34 billion dollars in government grants backed by the DHS have rapidly accelerated the militarization of our domestic police forces. Introduction of armored vehicles and even drones paired with the casual use of war tactics has since entirely changed the nature domestic policing.

The large-scale application of military tactics and weapons in domestic policing policy has resulted in an increase in civilian casualties. The availability of military grade weapons to police forces increases the ability for harm; such weapons are more likely to cause escalation of routine policing practices into volatile tragedies and shift the mindset of police into perceiving their civilian populations as enemies.

The arming of police with military grade material has helped to create a militant mentality within the policing system that causes officers to dehumanize suspects and act more aggressively in real world situations. Radley Balko, senior investigative journalist at the Huffington Post and CATO Institute, stated in online publication, “Overkill, [that] for thirty years politicians and public officials have been arming training and dressing cops as if they were fighting a war.”

Officers under such circumstances can lose perspective of their duty to “protect and serve.”

Instead, they become much more focused on inflicting violent punishment on the suspects.

This mentality towards the civilian population is very hazardous. Police are prompted to “shoot first and ask questions later” especially if they are engrained with the mentality that civilians are dangerous enemies. David Gilbertson, a retired officer with 35 years of experience in the police force stated that, “police officers have been trained to believe that they are continuously under physical threat” both expressly and subliminally. The heavy weapons and extensive equipment given to officers could exacerbate this misunderstanding, leading officers to more 9 | Berkeley Political Review

The DHS and congress are mobilizing to arm domestic police forces with an unreasonable amount of force.

Futuristech.

readily interpret danger in any given situation.

There are a lot of similarities in many cases of police brutality, including the cases of Roy Middleton and Kelly Thomas. In each case, police officers perceived a non-existent danger, and anything that could remotely be construed as dangerous induced disproportionate, and even fatal retaliation from the police. Officers thought that Middleton was holding a shiny object in his hand when they fatally shot him on his lawn.

Kelly Thomas, a mentally ill schizophrenic, was reported as suspicious to local officers, who then proceeded to beat him to death when his non-compliance was perceived as threatening. A deaf man, Jonathan Meister was beaten unconsciousness when he tried to use sign language that was interpreted by officers as threatening gestures. It is becoming increasingly clear that police who view citizens first as potential threats are more likely to shoot innocent civilians.

Zimbardo at Stanford University comprehensively suggests that a heavy concentration of power creates the potential for systemically embedded violence. The study found that “power objects” like shades, larger weapons, and uniforms had a significant impact on the making guards feel more powerful, sparking more instances of violence and abuse. Coined

by Zimbardo as the “Lucifer effect,” modern psychological findings like those of Joris Lammers Prof. at Tilburg Netherlands and Adam Galinsky Prof. at Northwestern University have found that arming domestic police with “power

objects” like automatic weapons, drones, armored vehicles, and armor exponentially increases the likelihood of police violence.With the Federal Aviation Administration providing the thumbs up for domestic drone use in the near future, police departments will have access to an even larger arsenal of unreasonable equipment. It is logical to state that police misconduct is more easily perpetuated in an environment where access to more versatile and dangerous equipment. Officers with automatic guns, tanks, and air support cannot afford to make any margin of error when they begin to incorporate such equipment into regular policing practices. Prof. Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University School of Justice Studies reported that around “18 percent of the paramilitary units conduct regular roving patrols.” These patrols are statistically more likely to abuse excessive force because excessive force is so easily accessible.

Police officers are not evil. Most officers become keepers of the law because they want to “protect and serve.” But when we allow our police officers to have unhindered access to military weapons and train our officers to demonize the public, society is sure to face systemic abuse of authority. We must take action to limit the amount of power that officers have access to because in the end, they, like us, are only human. ■

Pot Politics Colorado and the roadmap to marijuana legalization

Origins with at least 25% increase in search rates to Denver compared to the U.S. average, amongst top 50 Denver origins. Circle size shows search increase (Nashville up 63%, Houston 28%). Hopper

T

MICHAEL CLARK

hree months have passed since Colorado enacted Amendment 64. The law legalized the recreational use of marijuana and established heavy state regulation in a manner similar to alcohol for the marijuana industry. Critics of the legislation expressed concerns of increased drug use and crime following January 1st, the day the first dispensaries opened their doors. Though little data regarding the socioeconomic effects of Amendment 64 currently exists, initial impressions and relevant studies offer encouraging signs for Colorado and the future of similar legislation in other states.

Early economic indicators are promising. According to figures released

by Colorado’s Department of Revenue, combined sales of medical and recreational marijuana generated more than $3.5 million dollars in tax revenue in January, with more than two million collected from recreational marijuana alone. With only 59 of Colorado’s now 160 retail pot shops filing a tax return for January, tax revenues could increase substantially in the coming months as new stores open untapped markets. Even if the January figures remain consistent month-by-month, Colorado will accrue an estimated $42 million in additional revenue. The state is likely to further bolster its budget through a reduction in the penal and enforcement costs of marijuana-related crimes. According to RAND senior economist Rosalie Pacula and University of South Carolina professor Eric Sevigny, savings from “reduced criminal justice costs…will far exceed the probable regulatory cost of implementing even a highly regulated marijuana market.”

With legalization comes tourism. While no reliable 2014 data on tourism for Colorado currently exists, anecdotal evidence of pot tourism was abundant the first few days of pot sales in Denver. A study by the travel data company Hopper found that flight searches for Denver increased 14 percent above the national average in the first week of January, mostly originating from cities with stricter drug laws, such as Kansas City, Detroit and Nashville. In the world’s premier marijuana destination, Amsterdam, nearly 1.5 million pot tourists visit each year, according to Amsterdam mayor Eberhard van der Laan. The additional revenue generated in marijuana-related hotel bookings, shopping, and other travel expenditures for

U.S. Colorado could be substantial.

However, not all is a Smithian free market dream. Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana is classified alongside drugs like heroin, ecstasy, peyote, and LSD as a Schedule 1 substance with a high potential for abuse. Though the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Department of Justice have issued documents outlining proper procedures for transactions with legal marijuana companies, banks have been reluctant to engage with the nascent industry. In response to the documents, Frank Keating, CEO of the American Bankers Association, released a statement expressing this apprehension.

“As it stands, possession or distribution of marijuana violates federal law, and banks that provide support for those activities face the risk of prosecution and assorted sanctions.”

This tension between federal and Colorado state law has led to an economy built primarily on cash, creating bookkeeping nightmares for dispensary owners and a potentially lucrative target for thieves. Until this threat is removed through national legalization, financial institutions facing potential racketeering charges will likely continue to withhold basic banking services from cannabis companies, even where marijuana is legalized at the state level.

While early economic indicators are promising, initial social indicators are inconclusive, and the conservatives of drug policy remain wary.

Some law enforcement officials and experts fear legalization will lead to an increase in crime. A 2013 Drug Enforcement Administration report claims that marijuana legalization will embolden transnational crime organizations as they maneuver to enter the legal market. A study in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence Journal found that heavy adolescent marijuana can lead to drug and property crimes. And a study released

by Denver’s Department of Safety found a slight increase in crime near medical marijuana dispensaries.

These studies suggest correlation and should not be dismissed. However, they are not evidence of causation, and the DEA’s report is mere speculation (and guided by a strongly vested interest). As the study in the Drug and Alcohol Dependence Journal itself notes, “It is unclear if the strong link between drug use and crime is causal. Instead the association may be the result of strong risk factors that predispose an individual to both use drugs more heavily than peers and to engage in criminal activities.” Similarly, the small surge in crime near Denver’s medical marijuana dispensaries may be related solely to their nature.

Stores selling coveted mind-altering goods, whether alcohol, prescription pills, cigarettes, or marijuana, are always enticing targets. These reported crime increases could also merely be the result of diverted police attention as they are freed from focusing on petty drug offenses. As UC Berkeley Professor of Public Policy and consultant to the State of Washington Liquor Control Board Robert MacCoun notes, “Marijuana is correlated with crime, but I believe the correlation is mostly spurious.

It’s different from heroin and cocaine, where addicts commit crimes to pay for their drugs (an effect of prohibition), or alcohol, which does seem to encourage bad behavior and discourage good behavior (an effect of chemistry).” The simple truth is that disaggregating causal relationships between drugs and crime from other socioeconomic factors is difficult with even the most rigorous studies. Fears of an increase in crime are often linked with fears of increased use. Organizations like The Partnership at Drugfree.org and the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence cite various studies purporting to show an increase in marijuana use among teens if marijuana is legalized. One such study, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, found that 10 percent of high school students who were considered ‘low risk’ for habitual marijuana use would use pot if it was legal. A similar report issued by the Partnership Attitude Tracking Study declared that 65 percent of teens who occasionally used marijuana were more likely to use with legalization.

Berkeley Political Review | 10

U.S.

An eager customer in Colorado.Theo Stroomer, Getty Images.

discourage good behavior (an effect of chemistry).” The simple truth is that disaggregating causal relationships between drugs and crime from other socioeconomic factors is difficult with even the most rigorous studies. Fears of an increase in crime are often linked with fears of increased use. Organizations like The Partnership at Drugfree.org and the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence cite various studies purporting to show an increase in marijuana use among teens if marijuana is legalized.

One such study, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, found that 10 percents of high school students who were considered ‘low risk’ for habitual marijuana use would use pot if it was legal. A similar report issued by the Partnership Attitude Tracking Study declared that 65 percent of teens who occasionally used marijuana were more likely to use with legalization.

For those who believe that stoned teenagers present a threat to society, this data, if true, is certainly unsettling. However, federal statistics of marijuana consumption after the implementation of medical marijuana and decriminalization policies in Colorado actually show a decline in adolescent marijuana use, with an 11.6 percent drop through 2009-2011 in Colorado teens compared to an increase nationally. But a more glaring problem with concerns about increased use is that they are fundamentally based on faulty conceptions of deterrence. The notion that prohibitionist policies significantly reduce consumption has been refuted again and again, both throughout history (the Temperance Movement and the resulting Prohibition Era did little to stop drinking) and through decades of various studies. A 2010 report by the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy found that in spite of marijuana arrests increasing 150 percent and federal spending on drug enforcement rising 1200 percent since 1981, national marijuana usage rates have not been affected. The recent surge in 11 | Berkeley Political Review

adolescent consumption is likely the result of other societal factors or may merely reflect more honest reporting from high teenagers.

One potential problem for Amendment 64 and future legislation is the unresolved legal question surrounding marijuana legalization and employment. Cannabis can stay in the body for as long as 60 days. Both government and private employers can issue drug tests at hiring or at their discretion, with a positive result constituting grounds for termination. With marijuana legal in Colorado, can companies (or the government) fire employees for having traces of marijuana in their urine? The legal precedent may be set in the case of Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic medical marijuana patient, who was terminated after testing positive for after-hours use. The Colorado Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling on the case this fall.

Until then, marijuana will be legal, but employees or job seekers may be forced to avoid the pot shops or risk unemployment.

In spite of these unresolved issues and points of concern, pot legalization in Colorado has been largely successful. The state has not descended into chaos and federal enforcement agencies have not intervened. Instead, normal residents of legal age formed long lines to smoke a substance no more harmful (and arguably less so) than alcohol, stimulating local economies and filling the state’s treasury in the process. States considering similar legislation should exhale (never inhale) in relief and draft policies to improve the Colorado model for their own constituents. In California, the potential economic gains should be incentive enough: estimates released by the California Board of Equalization of the state’s 2012 tax revenue from sales of medical marijuana ranged from only $58 million to $105 million. With 33 more million residents than Colorado, California could earn significantly more than $3.5 million per month from tax revenue. ■

U.S.

Financial Fiasco Questioning the Effects of Campaigns on the Undecided Population

I

MERRILL WEBER

n US, Majorities Satisfied with Conduct of 2012 Election,” read the Gallup headline from the night before the November 6th presidential election. Majorities should have indeed been satisfied, considering the candidates spent a total of $2 billion campaigning for citizens’ approval and support. Presidential candidates have access to astounding sums of money, but $2 billion is more than just your average sum of donations. This raises the question: did the money Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spend actually affect the vote?

While media grabs people’s attention, it does not always sway their views. According the Minimal Effects Model of Political Science campaigns have only a limited effect on voters.

Many people vote along with their ideology on a particular policy, and over 90 percent know for whom they will vote before the campaign is in full swing. Essentially, campaigns boil down to getting the undecided 6 percent of the population to vote for a particular candidate and then win by a 2 percent margin.

Before 2010, no campaign had spent such an exorbitant amount of money on one single election; even in 2008 Barack Obama and John McCain only spend one billon cumulatively. In 2012, Obama spent $266.1 million and Romney spent $144.7 on advertising alone. When Citizens United argued that the First Amendment protected corporation and union independent expenditures in September 2009, the justices of the Supreme Court made a decision that affected the entire spectrum of campaign donations and spending. Unlimited spending and campaign contributions are now protected as free speech under the First Amendment. By deeming corporations and labor unions “individuals,” they gained the ability to donate limitless funds to advertise issues relevant to the candidate, though are still subject to direct contribution limits.

President Obama remarked in his State of the Union Address that Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend with-

out limit in our elections.” The floodgates did indeed open. From all different directions, a total of $7 billion was spent on the 2012 election. While $2 billion came directly from the candidates’ campaigns, $5 billion came from outside sources, such as political action committees (PACs). With newly given permission to donate limitless amounts to outside sources, these corporations and unions began contributing heavily to campaigns by “expressing” themselves through PACs. In 2010, 83 super PACs spent $62,641,448 in independent expenditures advocating a candidate. In 2012, the number of PACs leaped to 1,310 and the contributions swelled to $609,417,654. Most of this money went towards purchasing television or radio air time, printed advertisements, and direct mailing and emailing. These techniques are used to highlight specific policy issues and to bolster “get out the vote” (GOTV) efforts. Arguably, these tactics have little effect on the population they target. Pluralism in the media barrages individuals with so many ideas that it runs the risk of oversaturation, in turn causing people to tune-out the advertisements on which do much money is spent.

In attempt to increase the effectiveness of advertisement and GOTV efforts, both political campaigns upped the ante with technology capable of targeting certain sections of the population. Obama’s campaign team created NARWHAL in 2012: a voter profile information system that enabled the campaign to specifically target certain regions based on their preferences, political and otherwise. The Republican campaign realized its opponent’s technological edge, so created ORCA as a counter to NARWHAL (supposedly because orcas are the only known hunter of narwhals). ORCA kept records of individuals who had voted, which allowed the Republicans to then tailor their GOTV tactics to the undecided population. Still, the methods to influence voters remain basically the same.

Sending a person a flier championing an issue which he or she already supports could certainly reinforce their decision to vote in an upcoming election, but it would not necessarily affect the vote of a person teetering in between two parties. Additionally, the opposing party would be focusing on any known “undecided” voter populations just as much, creating the very pluralism that can cause campaign efforts to become ineffectual white noise.

Still, these systems provide background information that can instruct campaign strategists on how to best mobilize the population. Professor Rebecca Curry from the University of California, Berkeley Law School argues, “getting out the vote efforts are every bit as important as

persuasion.” Obama and Romney spent $2 billion not only to sway the undecided percentage (between 2 percent-8 percent, depending on the poll) of the population, but also to encourage past voters to participate once more. Door-todoor canvassing, pamphlets, and television ads all contribute to the endless persuasion, but they also serve the purpose of letting the public know that soon it will have the chance to wear the iconic “I Voted” sticker and proudly display America’s red, white and blue.

This question of effectiveness is one that should be remembered as decisions such as McCutcheon v. FEC are considered. In October 2013, McCutcheon brought the plea that limits on individual contributions directly to candidates and political committees violate freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the Supreme Court. While the conclusion of this case is not expected until later this year, McCutcheon v.

FEC might have a significant impact on how much money comes to each party’s campaign.

Although there are no spending limits on this indirect support, dubbed “soft money,” there are limits on direct support of the party or the candidate, conversely, “hard money.” Despite arguments in favor of McCutcheon’s cause, for now the aggregate limit of $123,200 per individual every two years remains standing. The continuation of this supposed limit on free speech angered some, but data show that in 2012, only 591 of the 310 million people in the population actually made contributions to federal candidates that reached the maximum level.

Additionally, the effects of the McCutcheon v.

FEC decision could be irrelevant based on voters’ lack of response to the advertisement efforts made possible by such contributions.

While monumental decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC have the immense potential to revolutionize the way election campaigns are financed, their importance lessens when one considers how much these elections actually sway the public. When the majority of the voters have predetermined their votes, the small percentage of “undecided” voters become crucial to both Democrat and Republican campaigns. When torrential advertisements and propaganda lose their effectiveness, one must wonder what other persuasion tactics might work. Until other strategies come into practice, the citizens of the United States should prepare for an atrociously expensive 2016 presidential election and a downpour of fliers and a torrent of advertisements begging for every vote. ■

Berkeley Political Review | 12

WORLD

Baseball Diplomacy: A Diamond in the Rough?

Cuban baseball may finally hit a home run in the political playoff between the U.S. and Cuba to resolve decades of icy tensions.

A young child plays baseball on the streets of Havana. Lisa Shires, National Geographic.

GLORIA CHEUNG

T

hey say sports are universal, but professional baseball in Cuba looks nothing like the major league in the United States. There is no fanfare, no souvenirs and no stars in Cuba; yet players make or break teams in the U.S., their jerseys adorning college dorms across the nation. Despite these differences, Americans and Cubans unite in their passion for the game – and this may pivot U.S.-Cuba relations out of its decades-old stalemate.

Since the Cuban baseball system under the socialist government was replaced with amateur leagues, players have trained exclusively under the state and only earned a measly $20 a month for their work. Any aspiring athlete who wanted to compete in competitive foreign leagues such as Major League Baseball (the MLB), had to defect from Cuba. For those players seeking to join the MLB, they had to claim residency in countries such as Mexico or Haiti because of the major league’s “Kuhn directive.”

This directive was set forth in 1977 by then-MLB Commissioner Bowie 13 | Berkeley Political Review

Kuhn, which forbid U.S. teams from interacting with any Cuban player in Cuba. However, Cuban officials driven by the need to halt the growing number of defections by Cuban players, and seeing an opportunity for a source of additional tax income, have begun to expand playing options for their athletes. As of September 27th, 2013, Cuban domestic players may now sign overseas contracts and compete in foreign leagues such as those in Japan and Mexico.

Changing winds in Cuba This allowance for Cuban players to pursue foreign employment follows the Cuban government’s decision in late 2013 to allow retired Cuban players in the U.S. to return to Cuba for an exhibition match – an unexpected leniency by the government. In fact, these moves fit within the general policy of liberation initiated by Raul Castro since he became President in 2008. Restrictions on personal freedoms such as ownership of consumer goods and travel outside the country have been loosened, defectors have

WORLD gradually been allowed back into the state, and Cuba is even offering to mediate between Colombia and its largest guerilla rebel movement – the FARC. Other influential figures in Cuba, such as Antonio Castro, son of Fidel Castro and Vice President of the International Baseball Federation, hold equally progressive aspirations for Cuba. Antonio Castro is a strong advocate of the use of baseball as a way to bring about change and progress for Havana. He argues remittances obtained from players working overseas could kick-start the stagnating Cuban economy, especially if they are reinvested into infrastructure and other Keynesian social policies. He also wants to increase Cuba’s presence on the international stage, starting first with baseball. Apart from being a strong advocate of allowing Cuban baseball players to join professional teams abroad, Antonio has also championed baseball as an Olympic sport – with Cuba at the forefront of this initiative.

Cuban players in the U.S. Long regarded as a haven of amateur baseball talent by MLB franchises, players from Cuba have sustained a strong presence in U.S. baseball. Prior to Fidel Castro’s revolution, the Cuban baseball circuit was a key source of players for the MLB. Stars such as Minnie Minoso (three time recipient of the Gold Glove Award), Zoilo Versalles (1965 most valuable American league player), and Tony Perez (three time World Series winner) were the headliners of their time. Now, players such as Yoenis Cespedes, Aroldis Chapman, and Jose Fernandez have continued to showcase the immense talent that is bred on Cuban baseball fields. Their accolades include: winner of the 2013 Home Run Derby, the record for the fastest pitch ever in the MLB, and the 2013 Rookie of the Year Award, respectively.

There is little doubt that MLB officials have significant interests in Cuban talent, but they are still hamstrung by official American foreign policy. As expressed in a statement from the MLB: “given that we do not have any details of this change in policy, it would be premature for us to speculate what effect it may have. [Major League Baseball] and its clubs have and will continue to act in accordance with the laws and policies of the United States Government.”

The main policy in question is the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), a federal law that restricts financial transactions with ‘blacklisted’ countries.

Under the law, Cuban players are prevented from sending back any of their pay as remittances. Unfortunately, Cuba is the only country on the TWEA’s shortlist. This is further complicated by the Cuban government’s stipulations – under its new regulations – that not only do players have to return to Cuba to play during the country’s winter season, but they also have to pay taxes on their earnings, which is explicitly prohibited by the TWEA. Thus, Cuban players looking to play in the Major League, somewhat freed from the constraints of their own government, are now instead thwarted by a 51-year-old embargo.

Some naysayers may thus dispute that this change in policy will make a dent in the status quo. Nonetheless, even if it has no impact on the MLB in the short term, the policy is still indicative of a shift in international policy from Havana. On one hand, it’s clearly a significant step for the republic; on the other hand, it makes it easier for talented players to gain credit for their abilities – be it within the Cuban state or overseas. In fact, players that were either heavily secured by the Cuban state, or driven by their patriotism to reject offers may now find that their prospects are much brighter. Take for instance Yulieski Gourriel, a talented 29-year-old third baseman who batted .314 in 2013 for Sancti Spiritus, a Cuban baseball team. He used to receive multiple offers that he “never paid attention [to] because [he has] always said [he is] not interested.” The new policy would allow him to earn decent wage abroad whilst still representing his home nation 50 years on, the Cold War paradigm that permeates U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba seems less intractable and more resolvable. Despite the fact that the United States still does not have formal diplomatic relations with Cuba and an embargo is maintained on Havana, relations between the two countries have improved in recent years. For instance,

the Obama administration has eased specific travel and other restrictions on Cub in 2011, and bilateral relations were discussed between Congress and Castro in 2012. Even amongst the public, a recent national poll conducted by the Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center shows that around 56 percent of Americans favor the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations.

While it is unlikely that either Havana or Washington is going to concede first and reinstate formal diplomatic relations, sports is a viable channel to further improve and resolve these tensions. Though changing public sentiment may be ineffective without a trigger, such as a powerful lobby group bringing this issue to the forefront of national headlines – baseball could fill that role. Not only does the MLB have a robust financial lobby – it has raised more than $2.3 million since it’s Political Action Committee’s conception in 2001 – baseball also has a special place in domestic American politics.

One could point to baseball’s special treatment by Congress as evidence of the importance the U.S. places on it. It is the only sport that retains an exemption from anti-trust legislation despite the Supreme Court recognizing in 1982 that this was “an anomaly.” Furthermore, during the steroid scandals of the 1990s, congressional hearings and inquiries were organized to oversee baseball; in contrast, professional hockey was merely subject to a lockout. In this instance, Congress displayed an unusual amount of oversight and interest in an industry it usually does not intervene in.

However, the most striking evidence of how baseball could catalyze a change in U.S. policy towards Cuba is that U.S. representatives have attempted a similar maneuver before. On January 6th 1999, Congressman José Serrano introduced the Baseball Diplomacy Act in the House of Representatives. He called for the waiving of visa and immigration restrictions for Cuban nationals immigrating to the U.S. for the purpose of playing professional baseball. Though the bill had 22 cosponsors, it was relegated to the sidelines. The belief was that Castro was not open to such an initiative, especially because Cuba had rejected Japanese attempts in 1996 to pay for Cuban players to play in the Asian Leagues.

Now, it seems that circumstances in Havana have changed. In 2011, President Obama said, “if we see positive movement (in Cuba) then we will respond in a positive way.” Perhaps it is time for the President to make good on his promise and respond to Cuba’s overtures, starting with easing restrictions on Cuban baseball players by modifying the TWEA. ■

Autographed Cuban baseballs. Art Streiber, Vanity Fair.

Berkeley Political Review | 14

WORLD

Denmark: Getting to the Meat of the Issue

Denmark has banned Muslim and Jewish ritual slaughters, further secularizing Europe.

GABRIELLA ARMATO

T

he Danish government is currently being “chewed out” by domestic religious minorities and their international counterparts after the country’s recent ban on Muslim and Jewish ritual slaughters. Despite the fact that there has not been a case of documented ritual slaughter in over ten years within the nation, and most observing Jews within the country import their Kosher meat, many Jewish and Muslim groups percieve the new law as an affront to their religious rights and as the product of nascent anti-Semitic and Islamophobic sentiments that have been growing within Europe. Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan, the Israeli Deputy Minister of Religious Services states, “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colors across Europe, and is even intensifying in the government institutions.”

Proponents of the law hold that the new legislation is not aimed at constraining minority religious rights, but rather is meant to strike a delicate balance between animal rights and religious sovereignty. The current Danish agricultural minister, Dan Jørgensen, has released an announcement saying, “we are not forbidding religious slaughter, but it should be conducted by (first) stunning the animal,” and he has argued there is no legislation that prohibits the importation of Kosher meats from outside of Denmark. However, according to most Jewish and Muslim minorities, the act of stunning the animal makes it impossible to properly observe the ritual’s regulations.

Moreover, many argue that this legislation is ineffective at promoting Denmark’s animal rights agenda considering the scarcity of slaughter rituals, as well as the perversity of other animal welfare issues that are much more impactful. More effective legislation could look towards further regulating the questionable practices of the factory farming industry. For example, within the pig farming industry, 25,000 piglets die daily without even making it to the slaughterhouse due to inhumane conditions. Many of these factory farms neglect to abide by European Union regulations that govern the humane treatment of animals; this creates an environment that causes the animal to suffer throughout the entirety of its lifetime, not just during its death. By focusing on legislation that targets reform in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Denmark may have more validity to its claim of prioritizing the promotion of animal rights.

In response to the legislation, several groups, such as The Conference of European Rabbis and the European Jewish Congress, have attempted to lobby support against the legislation from abroad while local representatives of the Jewish and Muslim communities have pushed for government officials to review scientific data that proves the humane nature of these religious rituals. Additionally, the Halal monitoring group, Danish Halal, has circulated a petition to reverse the policy that accumulated over 12,000 signatures thus far.

However, this sort of religiously divisive legislation is not unique to Demark. In fact, Sweden and Norway have already placed bans on the practice and other nations such as France have enacted other laws that have further secularized their nations.

Specifically, France’s host of laws prohibiting the public expression of religion has received substantial pushback from the religious minorities within the country, who are subject to increasing cultural isolation. Most infamous is the nation’s “Burqa ban,” which has caused Muslim communities to feel explicitly targeted by the state. In a recent case brought to the European Court of Human Rights, Fatima Afif, a Muslim woman who resides in France, is looking to uphold her right to religious freedom after 15 | Berkeley Political Review

being fired from a daycare center for wearing the Islamic headscarf. In the wake of the trial, French president Hollande argued that legislation should be implemented that ensures people who outwardly express their religious “tendencies” should be kept away from institutions that would expose them to children in order to prevent influencing the youth.

The Dutch have also recently aligned with the French by fomenting antiminority and anti-immigrant sentiment within their borders. For example, The Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Front National in France have cashed in on European fears of religious minorities through intense anti-Islamic rhetoric by the former and a crackdown on non-EU citizen immigration by the latter. However, the philosophy behind this right-wing cross-national alliance does not appeal to all other European powers; the United Kingdom Independence Party refuses to engage in any partnership that promotes anti-Islamic policies within Europe.

As an increased number of European nations slide towards intense secularization, minority groups within these countries will begin to feel disenfranchised and marginalized by their own governments. European politicians are walking a tightrope, balancing liberal democratic values in one hand and religious freedom for its ethnic minorities on the other. One wrong step or too much weight on one side will cause them to topple into a pit of protesters and further pressure from these groups’ international supporters. Striking a proper balance between secularism and minority rights is going to be difficult to say the least, but doing so is imperative to maintain domestic stability. However, based on this emerging trend in European legislation (spurred by increased nationalism and potentially racism), Europe’s religious minorities may have to get use to domestic laws that demand less minority sovereignty and increased secularization. ■

A Danish citizen protests racism directed towards Muslims. Jacob Holdt, Islam Awareness.

WORLD

The Ring of Fire: Troubled Seas Overlapping claims on valuable islands are inflaming tensions in Southeast Asia

S

GIACOMO TOGNINI

outheast Asia will be at the forefront of future conflict and diplomacy. Containing some of the world’s fastest growing economies and holding vast reserves of oil and natural gas, this multicultural region is already in the crosshairs of hegemons and rising powers alike.

Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines make up ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a political organization that putatively aims to establish a tighter political and economic union between its members à la European Union (EU). However, territorial disputes and the issue of alignment with global powers remain significant obstacles to further integration.

At the center of the largest issue facing Southeast Asia currently are the Spratly and Paracel Islands, a far-flung group of tiny islets in the South China Sea. Believed to be lying on the surface of vast natural gas reserves, these shoals and reefs are pitting nations against one another and pulling in China and the United States, putting the region at the center of geopolitical conflict.

The islands are claimed by six nations, four of which are members of ASEAN. China and Taiwan maintain the largest claim with the oft-stated “nine-dash line,” that stretches down from Hong Kong to the coast of Borneo, whereas Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei hold more modest claims emanating from their maritime borders.

The value of the islands is significant. First and foremost is the potential for hydrocarbon reserves that, if fully exploited, could be the fourth largest reserve in the world. Access to the South China Sea seabed and its resources is a major strategic aim for nations such as the Philippines and Vietnam that need to continue their rapid economic growth to pull their populations out of poverty and assert their power in the region.

China has been by far the most aggressive state in making a reality out of its claims on paper. In 2012 its Hainan province established a “city”, Sansha, on a small island populated by 444 people to create a proper administrative region to

Nations are facing each other over highly coveted islets. Xinhua, AP.

legally formalize China’s claims on the islands.

Since 2012 the Chinese navy has conducted a policy of encircling the reefs and shoals it lays claim to in order to dislodge foreign fishermen or the navies of other claimants, who often have no choice but to retreat.

China’s actions, even if seen as legitimate by the leadership in Beijing, have created enormous tension between it and Southeast Asian nations and have ruptured relations within ASEAN. Given that China and the United States are both major providers of investment and development aid, nations in the region tend to align with one or the other, barring exceptions such as Indonesia. Vietnam, a nation that still claims to be communist and only re-established relations with the United States in the 1990s, held talks with then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2013 with the aim to forge closer military ties with America in response to China’s South China Sea policy. Considering that the United States and Vietnam only established diplomatic relations in the 1990s after a divisive war in the 1960s, this is historically significant.

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III has also asked numerous times for the United States to reaffirm its commitment to protecting the Philippines’ security, an agreement that controversially does not include the disputed islets. In any case, the U.S. navy’s rapid and successful response to Typhoon Haiyan in November 2013 proved it is able to respond quickly to events in the region and acted as a veiled warning to any future Chinese aggression.

However, President Obama’s long-delayed strategic “pivot” to Asia could be playing into China’s hand. The lack of American assistance could lead other claimants to be militarily intimidated into agreeing on bilateral deals with China, Beijing’s preferred outcome. America’s allies, if they see a reluctance to act to defend their borders on the U.S.’s behalf, could increasingly take matters into their own hands. This could lead to a rapid escalation of tensions and raises

the specter of maritime conflict between Southeast Asian nations and the Chinese hegemon.

With nationalism on the rise, this is worrisome.

For now, America seems to be staying true to its defensive commitments, having recently strengthened the Philippine navy and held highlevel talks with Vietnam. Malaysia and Brunei, which have smaller claims, have sought to steer clear of provoking China and have avoided clarifying their position on negotiations.

ASEAN’s deliberations on the Spratly and Paracel Islands issue have thus far centered on two very different proposals. One, pushed by China and its main regional ally, Cambodia, advocates for individual deals between the claimants and the People’s Republic. Vietnam and the Philippines vehemently oppose this approach as they believe it would allow China to hold onto more territory. They instead propose a multilateral deal between all the claimants, one that would probably leave China with less of its claims. At the ASEAN summit in Phnom Penh in 2012, which was conducted to achieve a resolution to the issue, Cambodian and Chinese representatives torpedoed a deal, brokered by Indonesia and supported by the Philippines and Vietnam, that would have led to collective negotiations on a final agreement on the disputes.

Indonesia, which sees itself as becoming the regional hegemon independent of China and America, will continue to work to balance the preferences of its neighbors, especially in 2014, the year of presidential elections. Cambodia has been in the throes of political turmoil, as is Thailand, and in Myanmar the pace of political reform is slowing. Changing domestic political situations will affect whether they choose to move closer to China or push for a collectively bargained deal.

Until then, the Spratly and Paracel islands continue to be an uneasy place. Presided over by competing navies and inaccessible to expectant oil companies due to overlapping claims, it will take time for a permanent deal to materialize. ■ Berkeley Political Review | 16

WORLD

Merkel’s Response to NSA A SEPARATE EUROPEAN NETWORK ARSHIA SINGH

T

his past February Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel made a proposal for reduced telecommunications dependence on the US, instead developing Europe’s own “data hub.” Undoubtedly this move reflects an increasing sense of distrust between Germany and the US given recent reports of the US National Security Administration’s extensive surveillance of foreign allied leaders, among other targets. The plan could require companies such as Google and Facebook to maintain data centers separate from the US in Europe. Yet, taking into consideration both the development of the internet and its current state, it seems highly unlikely that Merkel’s proposal can be realistically implemented.

The internet as we know it is an improvised organization of globally distributed and autonomous networks. These networks come from various sectors of society ranging from public to private, research to commerce, and domestic to international organizations. Furthermore, each network chooses its form of protocols and technologies, meaning that there is no form of centralized governance other than voluntary technical standards and international technical identifiers. As a result of this extemporaneous development, data borders on the internet aren’t clearly defined like those we see on a map, making it incredibly difficult to envision how the EU or any individual nation would go about policing data transfer between nations. The NSA collects data on people through the use of technology like fiber-optic splitters, which would be stopped by preventing data from flowing through the US as Merkel intends. However, it also exploits poor security measures and lack of encryption in networks throughout the world to obtain data, and this wouldn’t be stopped by simply keeping data within Europe’s borders.

Still, a few functions like the assignment of IP addresses and control of the root zone of the Domain Name System (DNS) were previously controlled by the US government and continue to maintain very strong ties to it. They currently fall under the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), part of a nonprofit American corporation which functions under a US Department of Commerce contract. Recent revelations of mass surveillance by the NSA of international and domestic data have undermined trust in the IANA and its overarching organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). In response, many organizations called for the globalization of these functions in the Montevideo Statement on the Future of the Internet Cooperation, released in late 2013, including the heads of ICANN itself. It is important to note, however, that though these actions symbolize increased mistrust with respect to the US and data, globalization of these functions would have no impact on the NSA’s ability to monitor networks globally.

Merkel’s sentiments fall along these same lines and are reflective of the nation’s painful past during which many citizens suffered constant and extreme surveillance by secret police under both the Nazi regime and the Communist government of East Germany. Current NSA surveillance, though conducted through a new medium, is raising similar concerns throughout the world. Moreover, it appears that Obama’s declaration of the end of NSA’s watch on Merkel was misleading. Recent reports suggest continued surveillance of high-ranking German officials close to Merkel, along with hundreds of German business leaders, despite Obama’s previous orders.

17 | Berkeley Political Review

Yet, Merkel isn’t the only one with these concerns. Many politicians are moving to address their citizens’ concerns regarding data privacy; a TRUSTe study on UK privacy concerns indicated that 54 percent of people were more concerned about their online privacy as compared to a year ago, and 94 percent were concerned about their online privacy in general.

And these concerns translate into economic consequences: companies like Runbox, a Norwegian e-mail client, have seen a massive increase in subscription this year simply because they host their data on servers outside the United States.

In this vein, the EU’s Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has developed a series of regulations regarding data privacy and regulation that have serious implications for how companies with an online presence act in Europe. Her plan calls for one set of regulations across Europe rather than 28 separate sets of regulations for companies to deal with and the right for citizens to be informed if their data has been shared with third parties.

Companies have taken issue with the idea, mainly because it would require them to demonstrate a need to store data on its users in order to do so.

“The heart of the issue which Merkel and other politicians seem to overlook is how the NSA conducts its surveillance in the first place” They take further issue now that over 4,000 additional amendments (the most ever on record for a single European legislative file) were passed alongside the plan last year by the European Parliament, and are widely expected to become law late this March. Provisions include a right to be forgotten which guarantees the deletion of user content and information if requested as well as company fines for data misuse for up to 5 percent of annual revenue or 100 million euros, whichever is lower. None of this includes increased research or implementation of encryption protocols.

Despite these corporate restrictions on data, the heart of the issue which Merkel and other politicians seem to overlook is how the NSA conducts its surveillance in the first place. Indeed, certain functions of the internet can be globalized to reduce a continued dependence on the US for internet development. But Chancellor Merkel’s and Commissioner Reding’s plans would likely do nothing to affect continued snooping by the NSA. Other than data requests from companies, the agency relies on insecure networks and other systemic loopholes to exploit information on its targets; this wouldn’t be resolved by pushing European data to remain in European networks. Instead, Germany must look towards security, rather than reorganization, if they hope to protect their data and privacy. This can be in the form of increased encryption use among other security protocols.

What is not up for debate is the fact that current relations between the US and the world are on uneven footing due to this penetrating surveillance.

Without innovation and precise action on the part of other international players, we may never see an internet that rises above its initial conception as a US government-observed network. ■

Pop-Putin A Man, His Image, and the Russian Resurgence

Pop Art, Pop Putin. Image by Carrie Yang.

T

Jordan ash

he end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union is an event seemingly prophesized in the 1985 film Rocky IV: after 15 long rounds of mutual punishment, the American hero Rocky unleashes a massive left hook to finally knockout his Soviet adversary Ivan Drago. Whether it was actually the West who dealt that final blow or the Soviets themselves is debatable. What cannot be argued

is the fact that the 1990s was a period typified for Russians as one of economic devastation, cultural deterioration, a crisis of Russian identity. For many, it seemed Russia was down for the count.

The sudden fall from near hegemonic status alongside the painful experience of a highly ineffective Yeltsin administration took a heavy toll on Russian wallets (GDP falling 39 percent

OPINION

from ’91 to ’98), but perhaps more significant was the resulting damage done to Russian pride.

Post-Soviet Russia needed more than just any leader; it needed a hero, an Ivan Drago. On the eve of the new millennium, from the political, economic, and social wreckage suddenly emerged a heavyweight contender: weighing in at approximately 200lbs, St. Petersburg’s own Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Since taking power, Putin has constructed an image of himself that is larger than life, a real Russian action hero. Along with being “President of Russia,” Putin’s list of accomplishments reads similar to a Dos Equis “Most Interesting Man in the World” commercial. It includes (just to name a few): judo master, fighter pilot, deep-sea treasure hunter, and protector of polar bears. The (often shirtless) horseback-riding, hang-gliding, ex-KGB agent Putin is an image of manliness that stands in stark contrast with his red-faced and bloated predecessor. Although Putin may genuinely enjoy this life of action, his image campaign is a deliberate measure taken to impress upon the Russian populace a new era of Russian strength that will be honed under the watchful-guidance of its fearless leader.

Putin’s career-long image campaign provides key insight into Post-Soviet Russian psyche and policy-making. These images are planned and calculated attempts at capitalizing on Post-Soviet Russian feelings of humiliation and insecurity. Through the embodiment of values such as strength and action and connecting himself to the success of Sochi, Putin is encouraging a reversal of the 90s mentality and the return of a confident assertive Russia. Putin’s image appears well received amongst a majority of Russians, as indicated by his approval ratings throughout his presidency (at one point Putin’s rating reached nearly 90 percent.) Along with the traditional authoritarian methods of state-controlled media, and the outright repression of any form of criticism (such as that of rock-band/protest group Pussy Riot). Putin reinforces his future in power by building a popular culture based around him.

Americans, however, are not wholly impressed

by Putin’s escapades. Instead of “action-hero,” what is often perceived is a nearly comical villain attempting to deceive his subjects and the world while at the same time serving his own ego and hold on power. To Western observers, Putin’s outlandish activity is not much more than “hilariously insane” propaganda. Through these elaborate publicity stunts, we see an aspiring dictator trying to both distract and legitimize his oppressive regime. For the West, Putin is not a symbol of a revitalized or resurgent Russia, Berkeley Political Review | 18

OPINION

but of an ever-growing oligarchic tyranny which silences it’s critics through imprisonment and openly advocates hatred through the persecution of homosexuals.

In spite of Western criticism, the return of Russian prestige was a main theme of the Sochi Winter Games. Russian officials were repeatedly quoted throughout the Games as saying, “Russia is back”, and it certainly would seem that way. The Russian athletes dominated, winning more medals than any other nation (a total of 33, and the most gold at 13). The most obvious issues seemed to be a malfunctioning light in the opening ceremony and some less than ideal conditions for the athletes. Overall this could be considered occasion for Russia to break out the Stolichnaya and celebrate, Putin perhaps most of all. Sochi was, what many have described as Putin’s “baby.” Like many of his comrades, Putin considers the fall of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical disaster of the last century”, and Sochi was an opportunity Russia had to prove and reassert itself on the world stage. The success in the eyes of Sochi, at least in the eyes of Russians, represents a return to Soviet glory, and has become a shining personal victory for Putin.

However many remained largely skeptical of a supposed “return”. The West depicted Sochi as yet another example of Putin’s megalomania, an expensive publicity ploy initially doomed for failure. Western news media outlets highlighted a broad spectrum of problems, including everything from rampant corruption involved in the Games’ construction, to the more-than-likelihood of terrorist attacks. The twitter account, @SochiProblems, gave a daily update on problems from unfinished hotel rooms to discolored water and gained more followers than the official @Sochi2014.

Although the Sochi Olympics alone was hardly enough to prove a new era of Russian power, skepticism of Russian reassertion is hard to maintain in light of Putin’s recent geopolitical maneuverings. True to his image, Putin has does more than talk about “redlines”, he acts on them. In Syria, Putin has been strongly defiant of the West, and has proven that he’ll “walk the walk” by continuing his political, financial and military support of Bashar al-Assad. In the pro-

cess, Putin has revealed a distinct unwillingness (or at least strong hesitancy) within his Western counterparts to do much more than make threats. This revelation is being further tested by Putin’s deployment of military personnel into Crimea. Putin’s aggressive response to Western influence in Ukraine have led some to draw parallels between modern Russia and the Soviet Union, while others have gone as far as speculating that Putin might actually want a new Cold War. It would seem that Putin’s recent foreign policy decisions are meant to lend substance to his constructed persona.

While perhaps distastefully transparent to the Western observer, Putin’s image has proven

and minds of the majority of the Russian population. It reveals a psychological need long felt by the Russians for a leader to bring them back to the status and dominance many of them had experienced first-hand in the glory days of the Soviet Union. Putin’s image is one of power and aggressiveness, traits embodied in his actions as well as policy. Not only do we see a Russian brand of machismo in his support and enactment of anti-homosexual legislation, but also in his unexpected and successful defiance of the West (the United States in particular.) Like his photo shoots, Putin is showcasing Russian strength through events such as Sochi, but on a much larger scale through his policies in Syria and most recently Ukraine. Putin’s image is created to suggest that he is first and foremost a man of action, appealing directly to the Russia want, no the Russia need, of overcoming the humiliation of the recent past. Putin is attempting to write a new narrative for Russia, placing none other than himself as the story’s hero. In order to act accordingly, we as Westerners need to take a closer look at the image Putin has been building. It may be time for the West to put down the hard talk, pick up those boxing gloves and recognize the seriousness of this new contender, this Russian champion, Vladimir Putin. In other words, Rocky needs to shapeup: Drago has returned, and he’s willing to fight. ■

“Along with being President of Russia, Putin’s list of accomplishments reads similar to a Dos Equis ‘Most Interesting Man in the World’ commercial...Putin is attempting to write a new narrative for Russia, placing none other than himself as the story’s hero.”

19 | Berkeley Political Review

to be a crucial component in his retention of power and support in Russia especially considering this current term’s tumult. Since his re-election in 2012, Putin has faced unprecedented challenges to his presidency, such as massive anti-Putin demonstrations from 2011 to 2013 over alleged electoral-fraud. He is also currently presiding over a period of persistent economic stagnation brought about by Russia’s dependence on natural commodities. These problems, along with high-profile arrests of protestors such as the rock group Pussy Riot and a number of journalists, have seen Putin’s approval ratings drop to the lowest since he first took office in 2000. This “low” however was measured by the Levada Center at 61 percent, a relatively high rating considering the demonstrations and a weakening economy, especially when compared to U.S. President Obama’s 40 percent Gallup Poll approval rating. As shown by the polls, Putin’s continuing high level of support demonstrates the effectiveness of his image campaign in retaining popularity amongst a majority of the Russian population. Putin’s assertive image as reflected through his recent policy-making in Sochi and Ukraine have even caused a domestic approval increase Putin’s well-received image at home reflects the profound resonance he has within the hearts

Discrimination and the Voting Rights Act Has the Supreme Court decision to vote down Section 4 made America more racist?

PRIYANKA MOHANTY

T

he summer of 2013 was a time of unprecedented judicial decisions. Throughout the months of June and July, the Supreme Court made headlines for its landmark decision to legalize gay marriage. However, the very next day, amidst the celebrations of human rights activists across the country, the Court released another controversial decision; this one was not necessarily positive. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act, and established Section 4 of the law as unconstitutional. Their decision freed nine states in question - Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - from the previous prerequisite of pre-clearance, allowing them to change their election laws without advance federal approval. The court was divided upon ideological lines, disagreeing as to whether minorities continued to face voting barriers in states with histories of discrimination. Ultimately, the 5-4 opinion signified the court’s majority opinion that racism in voting was no longer as significant of an issue as it was in the 1970s. Chief Justice Roberts stated in his majority opinion: “Voting discrimination still exists to a certain extent…The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements...the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.” However, in the past seven months since the invalidation of Section 4 of the VRA, the Supreme Court’s decision has had severe consequences. Since the nullification of the pre-clearance precedent, those nine states have continued to pass racist voting laws, making one question whether much has really changed since Section 4 was originally established.

Mere hours after the Supreme Court decision was released, Texas passed the voter identification law that had been blocked by the Department of Justice previously. Since then, seven out of the nine states have passed discriminatory voter ID laws as well. These include restricting minority votes by moving polling stations, changing the dates of early voting and requiring federal identification (such as birth certificates or social security numbers) at the booth. Moreover, these restrictions have surpassed racial boundaries and now affect low-income populations as well. For example, North Carolina passed stricter laws that eliminated same day voter registration, shortened the early voting period and specified that ballots cast at the wrong polling station will be thrown out. Not only does this disproportionality affect poor minorities, who were most affected by the changed locations of polling stations, but the fact that North Carolina now has the power to “throw out votes” as they see fit undermines the very basic tenet of American democracy: representation. Furthermore, in both Virginia and Florida, lawmakers now have the ability to check voter ID with data from Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) data, causing a disproportionate amount of scrutiny to be placed on Hispanic populations, most of which have turned out to be citizens. Although the Supreme Court voted down Section 4 in order to prevent unequal treatment of states, it seems as though states are now treating their citizens unequally.

Moreover, the main problem with the lack of Section 4 is that it makes the VRA and any judicial action against racist voting laws a reactionary measure. As Justice Ginsberg stated in her dissenting opinion: “the focus of the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from “first-generation

OPINION barriers to ballot access” to “second-generation barriers” like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority….the law had been effective in thwarting such efforts.” Since the passage of the VRA in 1965, the pre-clearance measure has effectively prevented a little over 3000 textbook racist voting laws from being passed in the states by screening every law. However, in its current state, every complaint against a racist voting law, voter ID laws for example, is screened and struck down by the Department of Justice retroactively after the law has been passed. However, this new reactive oversight has allowed for many new laws to slip through the cracks as evidenced by the plethora of new racist laws of the past seven months. The lack of pre clearance has made it so the voices of voters have become increasingly distorted and subject to state politics.

The majority opinion of the court argued that the coverage formula was based on outdated information from the 1940’s, forcing certain states to be subject to pre-clearance based on their actions from decades ago. However, as the past seven months have proven, actions that those states took 70 years ago are still relevant today. Although results from state level election results appear to support that racial disparities in voting have significantly decreased since the passage of the VRA, the narrow focus on raw voting numbers exclude the current racial pandering that is now within the bounds of state jurisdiction. Although the state is entitled to its federalist authority, the rights of the people continue to be degraded and violated, as the only barrier between the people and autocratic racism is now null and void. One hopes that the Supreme Court will revisit the VRA in the near future, and restore pre – clearance; otherwise the nation risks a backslide into racist practices that it has tried to move past since the Civil Rights Movement. ■

Citizens protest Supreme Court Striking down Section 4 of VRA. colorlines.

Berkeley Political Review | 20

OPINION

China’s Costly Inaction China has the power to utilize its vast economic leverage over North Korea to save millions from starvation

I

EDWARD CHOI

t is in China’s interest as of late to start exerting real influence over North Korea. China has been wary of alienating its long-time ally in fear that an even more belligerent North Korea could erupt the Korean peninsula into a crisis that would surely draw it into the fray.

Its official interests were to maintain stability in Korea at all costs - even at the cost of propping up an evil regime that has been detrimental to its national interests. Regrettably, this course of action has led to continued embarrassment and trouble for China.

The recent execution of Kim Jong Un’s uncle, Jang Song Thaek, was symbolic of the North’s defiance. Jang was widely seen as China’s most reliable partner in bringing out economic reform in North Korea. Time after time, the North Koreans have disappointed Beijing. Emboldened by operating under China’s defense umbrella, North Korea has propelled its nuclear program forward despite China’s demand to denuclearize. It placed Beijing into a sticky situation after sinking a South Korean Naval Corvette, the ROKS Cheonan, killing 46 South Korean sailors.

China sullied its reputation by not condemning North Korea after the incident and refusing to do so again in 2010 when North Korea shelled the South Korean island of Yeongpyeong, killing two civilians. Beijing continuously receives a headache due to the North’s reckless provocations, which directly undermines China’s interest in keeping Korea stable.

China’s ideal version of North Korea would be an ally that opens its economy to the rest of the world, and moderates its socialist ideology to the extent China has. China would love to have North Korea model its own successful integration into the global community. But instead, its militaristic ally continues to be isolationist, totalitarian, and unpredictable as ever. North Korea is a massive disappointment for China, and is increasingly seen by many Chinese leaders as a nuisance. China’s state-run newspaper, the Global Times even wrote that: “There used to be some sympathy in Asia for North Korea and its striving defiance of the US and others that it sees as enemies. But now, even China, the long viewed ally of North Korea, sees North Korea’s defiance as a nuisance.”

In light of this shaky relationship, a window 21 | Berkeley Political Review

of opportunity is open for China to make a meaningful change in the poverty-stricken pariah state. North Korea’s totalitarian apparatus is arguably at its most vulnerable state ever since the founding of the country. Kim Jong Un, the latest in the line of Kims to rule North Korea, is still trying to consolidate his power. As the youngest head of state in the world, he is seen by the North Korean elite and even amongst commoners as inexperienced. He is unable to command the respect that his grandfather and father drew from the ruling elite.

Hidden camera footage smuggled out North Korea as seen in a PBS documentary Frontline: The Secret State of North Korea show both a top level party official and a young soldier secretly express their lack of confidence in the young leader.

The same documentary also highlights the advent of factionalism within the ruling elite, a phenomenon never before seen in North Korea under Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. Kim Jong Un is insecure and paranoid, and does not have the united backing of the political elite. The recent execution of his uncle as a traitor is yet a high profile symptom of the tensions bubbling within North Korea’s leadership.

Beijing cannot afford to wait for Kim Jong Un to further purge his political opponents and establish stability via a long trail of bloodshed.

Beijing must pounce while North Korea is still weak, and most susceptible to Chinese leverage.

China has the power to utilize its vast economic leverage over North Korea to great effect. Kim Jong Un cannot sustain his regime or his country without the vast amounts of food, energy, and monetary aid that flows from the Chinese border. North Korea also depends on the mutual defense treaty with China that promises

Chinese military aid in the event of “any external attack” on North Korea. This treaty is set to expire in 2021, and the Chinese could threaten to not re-sign the treaty, or revoke the treaty altogether to leave North Korea completely vulnerable security-wise.

This threat, along with a serious warning to shut off all economic aid to North Korea will definitely give China the leverage it wants over North Korea. Kim Jong Un faces a dilemma all dictators face. He knows that he needs to open up more economic and civil liberties if he wants to stay in power, but he also fears that opening up too much will result in his ouster. The prospect of losing all of the economic aid he needs to just simply keep him in power or to run his country, along with the fear of losing China as a military ally is a powerful impetus for Kim to take China’s demands seriously.

Tragically, the negative humanitarian impact of such an action would undoubtedly cause even greater suffering for the North Korean people.

Thus hopefully the threat alone would compel Kim to accede to Beijing’s demands without causing real suffering for the North Korean people. Yet even if China carried out its threat, it is a tragic, yet necessary bout of short term suffering that will result in longer-term benefits for the people of North Korea, China, and the international community.

Already the North Korean government and its party cadres exploit the vast majority of food aid that is sent to the country, and very little of it actually reaches the hungry masses of the country.

If a comprehensive shut-off in aid (especially with regards to military aid) were to take place, the institutions and infrastructure that supports the totalitarian state apparatus would crumble.

“North Korea is a massive disappointment for China, and is increasingly seen by many Chinese leaders as a nuisance...Beijing must pounce while North Korea is still weak, and most susceptible to Chinese leverage”

OPINION The North Korean people would have to adapt in the meantime to survive, while Kim Jong Un’s besieged regime scrambles to preserve its rapidly deteriorating power. Eventually, the complete lack of economic support from outside would prove Kim Il Sung’s ideology of Juche (self-reliance) fails to hold up against economic reality.

Even the military would suffer and starve, and with the current level of factionalism already entrenched within the elite, the sheer deterioration of the nation and increased level of social unrest may even deepen these rifts to the point

of inciting open rebellion against the Kim regime. Hopefully the pain from this hypothetical shut-off is short, and is quickly alleviated with the immediate resumption of aid once Kim Jong Un’s regime is either deposed or forced to accept China’s demands for reform.

While we shouldn’t expect China to desire reunification in the Korean peninsula, we know that China wants its own national interests realized in North Korea. China has a chance to show that it is the power to be reckoned with when it comes to Sino-North Korean relations. China

has the opportunity to make decisive moves that can help push North Korea towards liberalization and moderation that it has always desired.

Or at the very least, China could lay the foundations for the denuclearization of North Korea, a result that would greatly benefit all parties. What is certain is that the window of opportunity is closing, and that time is of the essence. China needs to act now if it wants to put an end to North Korea’s streak of recklessness, and its ungrateful exploitation of China’s support. ■

Illustration by Edward Johnston

Berkeley Political Review | 23