Women and Politics

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.

Attorney General Coakley and SEIU Member

By WCF Fellow: Trish

What better way to understand the needs of constituents than spending a day in their shoes? Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley this week will Walk A Day with Monica, a home health care worker and Service Employees International Union member.

Coakley received the critical endorsement from the SEIU local council, representing five unions and 60,000 workers. Walk A Day is a SEIU program to acquaint candidates with citizen’s concerns. Coakley will be caring for consumers and listening to workers’ concerns about their lives and their children’s futures.

Coakley’s been a leader on the issues important to workers and working families, including protecting workers rights, fighting for quality and affordable health care, and building a stronger and more stable economy.

The Women’s Campaign Forum applauds Attorney Coakley’s brand of leadership and proudly endorses her 2009 campaign for Senate. Check out Martha Coakley and our other endorsed candidates here.

By WCF Fellow Trish

Detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, 19 year-old Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. Not only was Ms. Jones deterred from seeking medical treatment under the threat of being fired, she was prevented from justice and due process by a binding contract. That’s right: her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations could only be heard by “private arbitration,” and not in a U.S. court of law.

Ms. Jones is a single example of countless, similar cases.

Let me remind you, lest you forget, that Halliburton and KBR aren’t just privately funded companies. They operate in Iraq on government defense contracts-on YOUR dollar.

This is why Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) yesterday proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor Franken said:

“The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.”

By a 68-30 vote, the U.S. Senate passed Senator Al  Franken’s amendment. All 17 female Senators, regardless of party, voted in favor of the amendment. But the 30 men who voted against it, obviously, outnumber those women. Isn’t that a sign that we need more women in the Senate? If we had 30 more women in the Senate (for a total of 47 women, still under half), imagine how different that’d 68-30 vote would look.

Appearing with Franken after the vote, an elated Jones expressed her appreciation:

“It means the world to me,” she said of the amendments passage. “It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it.”

For the likes of Ms. Jones, for likes of all women in the U.S., we need to achieve equality in our legislative body. The thirty votes denying due process to sexual assault victims is yet another indication that we need women to protect “women’s issues” like sexual assault. Because those thirty votes were cast only by men, it shows us that many men, one-third of the Senate, will not.

By  WCF Fellow, Trish Calvarese

In the bill to reform the current health care system, written by the Chairman of the Finance Committee Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), as it stands, no tax credit could be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger.

But those restrictions aren’t strict enough for committee member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Another white male, Hatch authored an amendment that said no money provided under the legislation could be used to pay “any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion.”

In the 13-to-10 vote rejecting the amendment, committee members voted with their parties, with two exceptions: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted for the restrictions, while female Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) voted against them.

Let us now take a moment to reflect on the fact that of the twenty-three member committee, only four are women: three democrats, and one republican. All four women voted against the amendment.

Now let’s consider this: had even just one more democrat jumped ship on the party and voted for the amendment (as Sen. Conrad did, shame on him), and had Sen. Snowe voted with her party, then Hatch’s disturbing audacity to legislate choice in a health care bill would have been successful.

Essentially, had not all three female democratic committee members voted against Hatch’s amendment, without Sen. Snowe voting against her party, in favor of women, it was very possible for the Senate Finance Committee to produce a health care bill refusing to provide funding for abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, or if a woman’s life depended on it.

Thank you Sen. Snowe, for putting women first. Thank you ladies of the Senate Finance Committee.

This is why we need more women in elected office, women who will put the rights of women and girls before party politics.