Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

In a recent attack ad, Carly Fiorina accused Senator Barbara Boxer of being an ineffectual representative, with her name on only three bills in the past 18 years. This prompted Rod Pennington to conclude that virtually all female Senators are essentially:

“Empty pants suits keeping chairs warm and taking orders from their male party leadership.”

I’m trying to figure out which Senate Rod Pennington and Carly Fiorina are watching. In the U.S. Senate, Barbara Boxer is the first female Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and simultaneously, Chair of the Select Committee on Ethics, making her the only Senator in charge of two committees at the same time. Also, a quick online search reveals that, in the current Congress alone, Boxer’s name is on over 500 pieces of legislation, including an international effort to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and an important taxpayer protection amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill.

Despite Pennington’s claim that women take their direction from male power-brokers in the Senate, he seems to have forgotten that, in addition to Boxer, who serves as Chief Deputy Whip, Sens. Patty Murray, Blanche Lincoln and Debbie Stabenow all hold leadership positions. In fact, the 4-to-10 ratio among the majority leadership is actually much higher than the actual percentage of women in the Senate (17%)—showing that these women are excelling in their political careers.

The recent health care reform debate also made it clear why we need women in Congress. Senator Barbara Mikulski, a leading member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, played a key role in ensuring that women received equal treatment in insurance plans.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Ledbetter shows why having women in Congress—and on the Court—is essential to promoting women’s equality. After Justice Ginsburg’s inspirational dissent, Congress quickly stepped up to remedy our unfair pay systems. Boxer was one of the first to co-sponsor the bill, and was soon followed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell. Although the final bill was not passed until 2009, it seems unlikely that we would have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today without the support of these influential women.

Last year, Sen. Boxer was named the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women’s Issues. This is the first subcommittee to ever focus specifically on women’s issues, and I’m certain that Boxer’s many years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee were instrumental in its creation. In response to her appointment, she eloquently stated that:

“Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world.”

This is an observation that many men would never make. Just as it took Justice Ginsburg to point out that our pay systems were unequal, often we need women to be part of the conversation to show what men choose not to see. In his article, Pennington poses the question:

“Could it be political correctness and the desire to have a woman, any woman, in a high office is to blame?”

The women that I’ve come to respect and admire in the U.S. Senate have fought for women’s rights, equal opportunity, and justice for all. I’m very proud to have these 17 women in the U.S. Senate, and hope the rest of America doesn’t share Pennington’s ridiculous and archaic assertions.

This post was submitted by former WCF Fellow, Mary Schilling, who is currently representing WCF on the Elaine Marshall campaign in North Carolina

My mother never took much of an interest in politics, but lately she has grown so frustrated with Washington and its corruption that she has written off the government altogether. And after my first weekend out on the campaign trail with Marshall, it was clear that my mother was not alone.

North Carolinians are tired of politicians finding their funding and their inspiration in all the wrong places. They need jobs, they need health care, and they need a real voice fighting for them in Washington, DC.

And as I continue to meet residents of the Tar Heel State, I hear over and over again how much they want Elaine Marshall to be their voice in the United States Senate.

Elaine Marshall has been a public school teacher, small business owner, lawyer, State Senator, and North Carolina Secretary of State. Respected and beloved, she has earned her reputation by always working hard for the underdog. As Secretary of State, she has created one of the most diverse offices in North Carolina, and she truly embodies every reason we need more women in government.

North Carolinians and Americans need Elaine Marshall in the U.S. Senate.

And many already know this. The only major state paper to endorse any candidate, The Charlotte Observer, chose Marshall back in April. Ken Lewis, who finished third in the May Democratic Primary, also endorsed her quickly and warmly after leaving the race.

Even Elaine’s opponent knows what a strong candidate she is, as shown by his desperate attempts to run a smear campaign of blatant lies in this week before the Democratic Primary Runoff Election.

This widespread support is, of course, fantastic for Elaine, and it’s also extremely encouraging for me—a young woman working on her first political campaign. But I have to say that the endorsement that has been most important to me, and one of the toughest for anyone in government to earn, is that of a middle-aged woman in New York—my mother.

Luckily, getting to know Elaine has only further convinced me of the quality of her character. Elaine is the sort of person who will pull over on the side of an interstate entrance ramp to run into the road and save a turtle—on the way home from a 48-hour nonstop campaign weekend.

She remembers everyone she meets after the initial introduction, and she knows the state of North Carolina better than her GPS. She is intelligent, experienced, quick-witted, and follows through on her word.

And for all of those reasons, I was excited to call my mother and say with pride:

I’m working on a campaign, but I’m not working for a politician.

She was impressed as I began to explain some highlights of Elaine’s tremendous career—winning legal battles for women’s rights, always speaking out against offshore drilling and the troop surge in Afghanistan, and standing up against big business to recover money for North Carolinians.

More importantly, I was able to say with complete confidence that I know that Marshall will do great things for real people when we get her to Washington.

But Washington insiders—the DSCC—have a long and powerful reach: They’ve come down to North Carolina in attempt to overturn the will of the people, giving her opponent $100,000 despite Marshall’s 9-point victory in the Primary. This is yet another example of a qualified woman being passed over and pushed out.

The people of North Carolina won’t have it. That’s why I’m here on the ground, representing WCF, fighting to make sure she doesn’t get left behind, and that the right candidate will be on the ballot in November.

Please visit Elaine’s website and see how you can help send this incredible woman to Washington.

June is a crucial month for women on the campaign trail. In tomorrow’s primary, WCF endorsed candidates Krystal Ball, Roxanne Conlin, Karen Bass, and Beth Krom will fight for more women in Congress, as will many others at the state and local level.

On June 22, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall will face a run-off for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina. And I’m proud to say that WCF will be with her on the ground in these last days.

WCF is sending a full-time representative to work in North Carolina for Elaine Marshall’s Campaign. Mary Schilling, a former WCF Fellow, arrives today to help Get Out The Vote, recruit volunteers, and manage phone banks across the state.

We’ve chosen to support Marshall’s campaign because her candidacy has, from the beginning, represented the core ideals of WCF. As a non-partisan, non-establishment organization dedicated to getting women involved in politics, we are focused on the quality of the woman running, and not who the party leadership has decided is the most likely to win the race.

For 36 years, we have stuck to this principle—and the results in North Carolina’s recent democratic primary proved that top-down, partisan politics isn’t always right.

Winning almost 37% of the vote, Marshall was the top vote-getter, confounding party assumptions about her viability as a candidate. Since her primary, Marshall has received endorsements from a former opponent and retired Congresswoman Eva Clayton. Clearly, Elaine Marshall has the local expertise and personal willpower to fight for North Carolina, and American women, in the U.S. Senate.

Indeed, Marshall has already proven her mettle as North Carolina’s Secretary of State, leading the charge against Wall Street corruption and helping to return $340 million to North Carolinians. She was also recognized by the National Federation of Democratic Women as their ‘Outstanding Democratic Woman Elected Official’ for 2010. This is the type of leadership and consistent support for progressive values that led WCF to support Marshall from the beginning of her political career, especially when establishment organizations were unwilling to listen.

We’re excited to continue that support from Washington and on the ground in North Carolina. We’ll be there when Marshall competes in the June 22 runoff, for the general election in November, and for the rest of her life in public office.

I think it’s safe to say that things have changed since 1787. Our country is much more diverse and our priorities are a lot different.

Sure, 223 years ago, a big concern was how each state would be represented in the national legislature. The Great/Connecticut Compromise decided that each state would get two Senators, and the House members would be determined by each states’ population.

But, as Annie Lowrey points out in the Washington Post, this seems to make less sense today:

“Half of the population of the nation lives in 10 states, which have 20 senators. The other half lives in 40 states that have 80 senators,” says the official Senate historian, Donald Ritchie. Small states and states whose representatives might tip the balance on a key vote make out like bandits, as their senators demand outsize appropriations in return for their support.”

Lowrey notes, “The Great Compromise was intended to make sure the big states didn’t trample the little guys.”

But who are the “little guys” today? I would argue they’re not states, but the under-and non-represented portions of our population: Women, low-income families, minorities, the young, the old, the middle-aged, etc.

Lowrey poses a radical question: What if senators represented people by income or race, not by state?

Get outta town. Our representative democracy actually representing our population accurately? Would that really be so crazy?

I’m sure many would think so…probably the demographic of folks who have been in power since 1787 and couldn’t possibly conceive of changing the system to be fair.

Which makes me really sad, because the Senate that Lowrey describes sounds so wonderful:

“Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets — with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.

Or how about if senators represented particular demographic groups, based on gender and race? Black women, Hispanic women and Hispanic men would have six each; black men five; and Asian women and men two each.”

And the part that especially made my pro-choice feminist self jump for joy?

“Women voters would control a steady and permanent majority — making, say, discriminatory health-care measures such as the Stupak Amendment and the horrible dearth of child-care options for working mothers seem untenable.”

Sigh. It would be so beautiful. But while it makes perfect sense to me, I know others would dismiss, laugh at, and otherwise criticize the idea to no end.

What do you think? Should our government reflect the makeup of our population?

A woman can either be a prude or promiscuous. Too pretty or too masculine. A shrew or a doormat. As women try to tip-toe somewhere in the middle, we find that one small move can send us plunging straight into one of the extremes.

And of course, politics is not free of these dichotomies: Sarah Palin is hot. Hillary is mean. Martha Coakley is a Jezebel.

But lately I’ve noticed a new double standard arising: Women candidates either have too much money or not enough.

Let’s look at two different races: Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner running for U.S. Congress and Linda McMahon running for Senate in Connecticut.

From the beginning, Jennifer Brunner has been told she shouldn’t run for Senate because she’s such a good Secretary of State. They need her there. This is one of the most classically lame “reasons” given to women as to why they shouldn’t run for higher office.

On top of that, she’s now being assaulted by her own party about her fundraising. Bob Menendez of the DSCC is threatening not to support her until she raises more money—despite the fact that many are saying she’s the only hope for a Democratic win (Lee Fisher reportedly lost his last two campaigns, despite outraising his opponent).

Unfortunately, we all know that fundraising is a necessary component of political campaigns. (That’s a whole different rant for a different day). However, I have to ask—would Menendez be pulling support from the more viable male candidate who wasn’t raising as much as his less-viable opponent?

Now let’s look at Linda McMahon. The former chief executive of WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), she apparently has too much money. Though hundreds of male candidates have self-funded their way to elected office, McMahon is being accused of trying to buy the seat.

Again, all personal feelings about campaign financing aside, I have to say that it’s nice to finally see a successful woman using her wealth to run for office. Men have been doing it for decades, so for better or for worse, seeing a woman have that same ability gives me some sense of satisfaction.

But I do wonder what kind of double standard women in politics will face next. I’m sure 2010 will unfold some new gems for us, as well as reignite some old classics.

This post was written by WCF Fellow, Stephanie Glover

Congratulations, Martha. After winning the Massachusetts Democratic primary, you are on your way to becoming the first female senator from Massachusetts!

Massachusetts participated in an historic vote yesterday as voters went to the polls for a special election to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. In the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, Martha’s win in the Democratic primary makes her strongly favored to win the general election next month. This would be a monumental win as Massachusetts has never had a female senator or governor in their 221 year-old history. This is about to change!

In her victory speech last night, Martha talked about the challenges facing women running for office, specifically in Massachusetts: “They said women don’t have much luck in Massachusetts politics – we believed, that it was quite possible that that luck was about to change!” And, that luck is changing with Martha on her way to the general election.

Martha’s victory couldn’t have come at a more important time, when crucial issues affecting women are being debated in the Senate and House. The Senate will benefit greatly from her voice and perspective. Martha is committed to reproductive choices and recently said about women’s health care, “It’s personal with me, and it’s personal with every woman.” As a WCF-endorsed candidate, Martha is a leader on these issues and will make a strong addition to the Senate.

Currently, women make up only 17% of the United States Senate, even though they represent over 50% of the population. Martha’s election would bring that percentage up to 18%, making us one step closer to equality. As MA Senator John Kerry said, “Tonight the glass ceiling in Massachusetts politics was smashed into a thousand pieces.”

So, ladies—how does it feel underneath the Senate bus? I don’t know about you, but I still have tire marks on my face from Stupak-Pitts running me over.

As we feared, another attack on women’s reproductive health choices was launched last night by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). His amendment mirrors that of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which was shamefully passed in the House health care bill.

Leading the opposition against this assault on choice was Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). She summed it up perfectly when saying, “This amendment would be the biggest roll-back to a woman’s right to choose in decades. What have women ever done to deserve this punishment and lack of respect?”

Boxer also pointed out that we didn’t ask for this fight, we don’t want this fight, and this amendment is an unfair attack against women:

“We believe it is discriminatory to single out a procedure that only women can utilize, and say to the women of this nation, ‘Oh by the way, yes, this is a legal procedure but you can’t use your own private funds.’”

And perhaps my favorite point she made last night pointed out the insane disparity between men and women’s insurance coverage—men can get Viagra but women can’t get reproductive health services?

“The men who brought us this don’t single out a procedure that’s used by a man or a drug that is used by a man that involves his reproductive health care.”

“There’s nothing in this amendment that says if a man someday wants to buy Viagra, for example, that if his pharmaceutical coverage could not cover it, that he has to buy a rider - I wouldn’t support that. And they shouldn’t support going after a woman using her own private funds for her reproductive health care.”

“I support a man’s privacy just as I support a woman’s privacy.”

And again, I find myself asking the question, “Would we even be having this discussion if we had more women in Congress?” I don’t think so.

But until we have equality, we have to support the amazing women leaders we do have in the House and Senate. We cannot let these attacks on our reproductive health stand.

Because I don’t know about you, but I’m sick and tired of being thrown under the bus.