Randy's Views

1996 was a pivotal moment in the history of Atlanta. As the world looked on, Atlanta hosted the 1996 Summer Olympic games. Although it was just eleven years ago, it seems like ages ago since the Games of the XXVI Olympiad. In July 1996, 197 nations from around the world all came together in Georgia to compete.

Venues spread across Georgia from Savannah to Stone Mountain. The centerpiece of the Centennial Olympics was the Centennial Olympic Park – the town square for the games. With pulsing water fountains, live concerts, and lots of Olympic activities, thousands gathered to visit and enjoy the unique atmosphere of the Olympics in Atlanta.

Few want to remember the Olympic mascot (Izzy – a computer generated fantasy figure), but everyone cherishes the memory of Muhammad Ali walking out in the Georgia Dome to receive his gold medal from the 1960 Olympic games.

At the games, Amy Van Dyken became the first American woman to win four gold medals in a single Olympic games (50 meter free, 100 meter butterfly, 4 X 100 meter freestyle relay, and 4 X 100 meter medley relay). Michael Johnson won the gold medal in both the 200 meter and 400 meter with his gold shoes on. The U.S. Olympic basketball team won the gold medal. In all, the United States won 101 medals (44 gold, 32 silver and 25 bronze).

Yet, one of the most heroic efforts was not by an athlete. Indeed, this person’s commitment and diligence in the performance of his job undoubtedly saved the lives and bodies of many, many people. Without his heroic actions, the magnitude of the Olympic bombing on July 27, 1996 would have grown from terrible to catastrophic. This real life American hero from Georgia was Richard Jewell. He died on August 29, 2007.

Richard Jewell started July 27, 1996 as a private security guard. On that day, he discovered a green knapsack containing a pipe bomb planted beneath a bench by Eric Rudolph – a domestic terrorist. Richard Jewell discovered it and alerted Georgia Bureau of Investigation security personnel. Richard Jewell then worked with other security officers to clear the area so that the bag could be investigated. Richard Jewell’s efforts saved lives and avoided injuries of many, many people attending festivities in the crowded town square of the Centennial Olympic Park. In spite of these efforts, the bombing killed one and injured 111.

In the days and months that followed, this American hero would endure a terrible injustice. A cynical media accused, tried and convicted him of being the bomber. It would start with unsubstantiated suspicion, followed by unidentified sources, corroborated by unreliable leaks, and ending in the wrongful character assassination of a good man. Using hedge words like “possible,” “allegedly,” and “suspect,” the media believed that its conduct reporting about a private citizen doing his job, was somehow acceptable.

Eventually, the real bomber was found and plead guilty to the horrible crime committed at Atlanta’s Olympic games. The Attorney General of the United States apologized. Of course, none of this could undo the public humiliation and personal stress imposed on Richard Jewell. He was only 45 when he died.

Since 1996, things have only gotten worse. Today, unreliable rumors spread over the internet like wildfire. Cable news fans the flames by reporting the rumors with passing citations to internet websites. The print media is not far behind succumbing to the pressure to remain relevant in an instant information age.

At some point, there has to be a line. Until some court or jury draws that line, it only gets worse. Richard Jewell’s story is an important reminder of just how bad it can be – now imagine worse.

In a rather remarkable turn of events, Judge Harold Murphy upheld Georgia’s voter photo identification requirement. After having twice enjoined the law, the Rome federal district judge was the preferred pick of photo identification opponents for yet another judicial block to enforcement of the law. Indeed, as the Secretary of State and the State Election Board pushed forward toward enforcement of the law, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the case boldly stated, “bring it on.” Well, the State did, and now the Georgia case will join a multitude of other cases around the country to uphold the constitutionality and validity of photo identification as one way to combat in person voter fraud.

Many Georgians might ask what has changed between the time that Georgia’s photo identification requirement was adopted and now. Cynics will undoubtedly respond – not much. Yet, there have been two significant changes between Judge Murphy’s original injunctions against the enforcement of Georgia’s photo identification requirement and his order now upholding its constitutionality.

Most significantly, Georgia has a different Secretary of State. In 2006, Georgians elected Karen Handel to replace Cathy Cox. The weight of the office of Secretary of State is no small thing in creating the dynamics to sustain the will of the Legislature and the Governor, and, in this case, the will of the people of Georgia. Georgia voters have consistently favored the photo identification requirement by about an 80% margin.

Although sworn to uphold the laws duly passed and enacted by the State of Georgia, former Secretary of State Cathy Cox made no secret of her opposition to Georgia’s photo identification requirement. In addition to her written opposition to the requirement (which became exhibits for the plaintiffs against the state), she made clear in her testimony as a constitutional officer of Georgia her belief that the law was unsustainable. Indeed, she was the lead witness for the plaintiffs and was cited often in the opposition to the requirement.

Equally significantly, former Secretary of State Cathy Cox withheld the resources necessary to support and implement the law. Eventually, her stubborn resistance led the Legislature to transfer responsibility for the necessary education to support the measure from the Office of the Secretary of State to the State Election Board in a specific provision in the amended law. In the end, former Secretary of State Cox’s opposition would reach the point where she released an inaccurate and misleading report regarding the number of registered Georgia voters without a driver’s license or DDS identification card. Interestingly, a news story based on her inaccurate and misleading report immediately appeared on her gubernatorial campaign website (“Cox: Lack of photo ID may cause ‘pandemonium’”). The court’s order is very pointed and none too kind regarding the former Secretary’s data, especially in contrast to the availability of reliable accurate data.

In stark contrast to this sustained effort by the former Secretary of State to undermine a duly passed and enacted Georgia law, Secretary of State Karen Handel stood up for the law and committed the resources necessary to enforce and implement Georgia’s photo identification requirement. Certainly, the shift in the testimony of Georgia’s chief election officer from obvious opposition to unwavering support is noteworthy. Yet, it is Secretary Handel’s record backing up her testimony that is important. She made clear that she would both enforce the law and educate voters to minimize any impact on Georgia voters. She backed it up with the commitment of resources from the Office of the Secretary of State to make that commitment meaningful.

In addition to this fundamental change in the commitment to supporting and enforcing the law, the judicial landscape took shape. Instead of the vacuum of court precedent that existed when photo identification requirements were just beginning, there now exists a pattern of judicial opinions across the nation recognizing the constitutionality and enforceability of photo identification requirements. Decisions from the United States Supreme Court, federal appeals courts, and various state supreme courts cleared the way for the enforceability of Georgia’s law, once adequately supported and implemented.

Basically, it was the combination of both a Secretary of State fulfilling her constitutional obligation to support and defend Georgia law, and the pattern of court opinions rejecting similar constitutional challenges, that made the difference and that was just too much for the court to ignore.

What does it take to become a candidate for the Presidency of the United States? Not much. A person legally qualified to be President (someone born in the United States and over the age of 35) needs only to state intention and they are a candidate for President. In fact, a person can withdraw their candidacy just as easy. From there, it gets a little more complicated.

If a person wants to spend money as part of a campaign to become the President, then they must file the required forms with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The candidate can give or “loan” his campaign any amount. If someone is rich, this is a great advantage. For those who are not, it is not very helpful.

If a person wants to raise money to spend on the campaign, there are very strict rules that apply. For example, the most that any one person can give to the campaign is $2,300. Importantly, there are also limits on who can give the money. For example, corporations and unions cannot give to a candidate. There are a host of other rules, restrictions, and procedures that apply. Hence, when someone gives money to a Presidential candidate, they complete a questionnaire about their identity, occupation, and address.

If a candidate collects money (after complying with all of the various FEC restrictions), then the money must be reported. These forms are complicated and lengthy. They permit everyone else to see exactly who has given what amount to which candidate. It also permits pundits and reporters to assess the strengths of the various candidates by comparing their fundraising and cash-on-hand.

In addition, Presidential campaigns need volunteers. In order to organize volunteers, campaigns need organizations. Typically, organizations rely on paid political professionals who have successfully organized and managed other campaigns. In addition to the overarching structure of a national campaign organization, fifty smaller state specific campaigns must be created and organized.

To fund all of this organization, candidates must raise money - and lots of it. Most believe that the total spent on the Presidential campaign will exceed ONE BILLION dollars. The entry fee for a meaningful campaign to have a meaningful chance to succeed is thirty million dollars. Translated into donors, this is well over 13,000 people giving $2,300.

These components are the bricks and mortar of a real Presidential campaign in 2007. Obviously, candidates with the most developed structures already in place have a significant advantage over any other candidates. Governors and United States Senators have big advantages early in the process. With four or six year terms in office, statewide campaign organizations in place, and a platform for participation in national debates, they start with the basic assets for a successful campaign.

There are several factors that can skew the possibilities. For a candidate, the factors are celebrity, and personal wealth. One of the greatest challenges faced by a candidate in a national political race in a primary is name recognition. Candidates that start with higher name recognition can make up a lot of lost ground. Candidates who can spend a lot of personal money to create name identification can do the same.

In addition, the impact of instant information from cable news and the internet are big. Notwithstanding the dramatic impact of cable news and the internet, it remains virtually impossible for a relatively unknown candidate without adequate financial resources to mount a meaningful campaign.

By far, the best example of a traditional campaign assembling a dominant campaign organization built on resources, talent, fundraising and structure is the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton. For the Republicans, it would be Governor Mitt Romney.

Of course, the best illustration that money and structure do not always guarantee success is the campaign of Senator John McCain. The best illustration that the internet and cable news (with an additional big boost from Oprah Winfrey) can change the political landscape is the campaign of Senator Barack Obama. And, the best example of a campaign that has succeeded based on the celebrity of the candidate is the campaign of Rudy Giuliani.

Notwithstanding the celebrities, resources, and organizations already in full gear, no candidate or campaign has yet struck a chord that resonates with Americans, or more importantly, even a majority of either political party. A vacuum remains. It is that continuing vacuum that makes the nomination process for both parties so unpredictable.

Columbia University is one of the most respected universities in the United States, if not the world. It is a private university with many outstanding achievements, not the least of which is producing more Nobel Prize laureates than any other college in the United States. Yet, its standing was irreparably tarnished by the decision to permit Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at its School of International and Public Affairs as part of its World Leaders Forum.

School officials rationalized the decision as consistent with the free expression of ideas. As the home to the Pulitzer Prize, Columbia University believed that President Ahmadinejad’s ideas merited inclusion in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, this assumes that Columbia University decided that there were some boundaries (other than international notoriety) to legitimate inclusion in a meaningful discussion of ideas.

Prior to Columbia University’s invitation to speak, the Iranian President’s ideas were well documented. Some of his most notable comments include comments at the “World Without Zionism” conference on October 26, 2005 approving of Ayatollah Khomeni’s statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Even a New York Times editor had to agree that President Ahmadinejad’s comments “refer to wiping Israel away.”

Undoubtedly, Columbia University must consider Israel’s right to exist as a fairly debatable topic. But, President’s Ahmadinejad’s statements go much further.

President Ahmadinejad eliminated any doubt about the meaning of his comments and his “wish” at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in 2006. As to Israel, his quote was “Israel is about to crash. This is God’s promise and the wish of all the world’s nations. . . .. Everyone must know that just as the USSR disappeared, this will also be the fate of the Zionist regime and humanity will be free.”

Finally, as part of his comments at the 2006 event, President Ahmadinejad referenced the Holocaust as a “myth.” After his comments ( and international criticism), he did not back down. Instead, the Iranian President insisted that he would have to have proof.

President Ahmandinejad did not disappoint when he got his opportunity to speak at Columbia. In his speech, he again raised the Holocaust and called for research into the accuracy of reports about it.

The question is, does Columbia University believe that whether the Holocaust is a “myth” is a genuinely debatable topic? If so, do they plan to conduct a forum, similar to the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust conducted in Tehran? If indeed these are genuine topics suitable for academics, why would Columbia University not host such a forum and also invite the remainder of the speakers from the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust?

Columbia University will not host such a forum, nor should it. For the same reasons, it should not have invited Iranian President Ahmandinejad to its campus. Recognizing the platform and corresponding credibility associated with speaking at a prestigious university like Columbia, the University President attempted to mitigate the harm by preemptively criticizing President Ahmandinejad in his introduction of the Iranian President. Unfortunately, the petty name calling did little more than highlight the absurdity of permitting President Ahmandinejad to even speak. Worse yet, the content of the introduction was inconsistent with the high standards of a university like Columbia.

The answer is actually much simpler than contemplated by the Columbia University decisionmakers. If President Ahmandinjad wants to give speeches on street corners upon obtaining legal entry into this country, the United States and its governments will not censor his comments unless they present a clear and present danger to others. This does not mean that anyone should give him a megaphone, microphone, or a “forum” on stage at a prestigious University campus to espouse his views. No one argued that Columbia should silence President Ahmandinjad; giving him a microphone, stage, audience, security for protection from his outrageous comments, and much more is a completely different issue. This may not make sense to the intellectuals on college campuses; it is something average Americans figured out right away.