Senator Blumenthal On the Upcoming Elections
SENATOR RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
We reached out to US Senator Richard Blumenthal, to talk about voters’ and candidates’ responsibilities, and to provide an additional perspective on issues of importance.
Do you think people understand their responsibilities, their privileges in a democratic republic?
I think a lot do. Many are focused on going to work, getting kids to school, putting food on the table, very much understandably on the more immediate challenges right now. I think most people do understand their responsibilities as voters and citizens. But I think everyone will by the time we approach Election Day. I think people understand how consequential these elections will be, not only for the President, but for the people up and down the ballot.
If you had to give advice to the electorate on choosing a candidate, what would it be?
Look for positions on issues, consistency in advocating them, and integrity for not only policy but also personal character. And your gut is very important when you assess people, much as you do potential friends or colleagues or others in everyday life.
By integrity, do you mean it's not just what they say, but what they do?
There is a saying that actions speak louder than words. Everybody can talk, but we need people who will walk that talk and demonstrate it in integrity, in actions, not just words.
By the same token, what are the responsibilities of candidates to the electorate?
Be authentic. Be yourself and give the electorate a true choice by honestly and consistently stating views on issues and what you think is important for the future. Elections are always about the future.
Why do you think people have lost faith in government?
Loss of faith in government, I think, is the result in part of their leaders failing them; public officials saying they're going to do one thing and then actually failing to practice what they preach and do what they say they're going to do.
It’s not necessarily the responsibility of any single official… our system is much better designed to stop action than to pass new legislation or enable a President to adopt new initiatives. That's the way the Founders designed it, to have a lot of checks and balances. So when public officials make promises, often they say what they want to do and what they would do in a perfect world if they had control, but no single official has control. So a lot of initiatives founder on checks and balances. And I think there's a lot of frustration with the system that seems stymied and stopped. And so one of the common refrains I hear is, why can't you guys get more done?
And the other cause of loss of faith in government, I think, is the polarization and politicization. Look at the Supreme Court. It's become so nastily politicized by the right-wing MAGA members of the court who are cravenly political. They're basically politicians with robes on and they have decimated trust in the United States Supreme Court, not to mention their ethical violations, which are so blatant, and they refuse to adopt a code of ethics or even approve Congress imposing one. So I think, you know, there's another example of public officials failing everyday citizens.
I thought that the Supreme Court did finally enact a set of standards for ethical conduct, but you're saying no?
They have adopted a set of rules that they say they will follow, but there's no enforcement mechanism, none, zero. So if you'll notice, Justices Kagan and I think, Brown said that they thought that there should be an enforceable code of ethics. But the key is enforcement. What are the remedies? What are the corrective actions or even punishments if people break the code?
Congress has oversight. This is a point of contention. The Supreme Court says nobody has oversight. “We're the highest court in the land. Even though we have the lowest standards of ethics, Congress has no business interfering.” Congress imposes standards on other branches of government, including every court except the Supreme Court. All the federal courts have codes of ethics that apply to them. Congress established rules of jurisdiction and procedure that govern the courts. So Congress does have oversight functions. The Supreme Court contends, or I should say, certain members contend that Congress has no business prescribing a code of ethics.
On the Supreme Court, there are two things that were decided in the last few months that will have a tremendous effect on the United States from here on out. One was the Chevron decision and the other was Presidential immunity. Would you explain the Chevron vote and then Presidential immunity and how that will affect us?
As succinctly as possible. The Chevron doctrine arose from the very well-founded view that administrative agencies - take, for example, the Federal Trade Commission - have expertise that the courts completely lack. And that view is not only well-founded, it's well proven by experience because the issues are now technically so complex that judges have to be experts in fields that they have no background or knowledge about. But the Supreme Court has said that the Chevron decision no longer is good law. And Chevron basically said that the court should defer to the agencies in those areas of expertise that they lack, because the agencies do have that experience and technical knowledge. And now the United States Supreme Court has put the burden on federal judges to make rules and set regulations or interpret big open areas of law, where Congress wants the agencies to have flexibility and discretion. The Supreme Court has, in effect, straightjacketed the agencies, to eliminate that deference by the courts and shift that power to the courts, which will be at sea a lot of the time on these issues.
On presidential immunity, you know, the issue is pretty simple. Basically, the president can be a complete lawbreaker and criminal while in office and be completely unaccountable.
I’d like to talk about the issue of privacy. People can spread our cell phone numbers, they can get into our computers, they can get into our emails. It makes people feel helpless, that they have no control over their own privacy. And not only that, there are also other electronic devices that will not even let you use them without signing over your rights to that privacy. Our TV set will not let us view anything without giving away our rights to privacy as to what we watch, when we watch it… Where does it end?
This topic of privacy is really the challenge of our time. The right to be let alone, as one Supreme Court justice called it, was one of the reasons we rebelled against the English. The right of privacy against English soldiers coming into homes of the colonists or opening the colonists' letters. These fundamental rights of privacy, in a technological age that looks very primitive compared to our own, established rules that are equally important and relevant today.
The right to be let alone from governmental interference or surveillance or other kinds of illegitimate activity is more threatened than ever before in our history because of the advances in technology that enable the government to snoop and peer and surveil. And of course, as you've just noted, it's not only the government, but it's big tech companies that have as much power as the government to invade privacy now. So we need stronger privacy protections.
I have sought to write a privacy bill. It's bipartisan. I think we can pass it. The framework has been approved by people on both sides of the aisle. But the big tech companies have been successful so far in thwarting us. And the Kids Online Safety Act is one part of privacy legislation that I think we can pass because we've done it in the Senate, 91 to 3, big overwhelming bipartisan vote, to protect kids online from bullying, eating disorders, self-harm, even suicide, and other kinds of toxic content. I know that sounds like a lot, but this toxic content is driven by algorithms that nobody understands. So the Kids Online Safety Act would give kids and parents tools to, in fact, take back their online lives.
Are you talking mainly about social media like Facebook and Twitter?
Talking all about social media. Social media that drives addictive and repetitive content. And we're not talking about censorship. We want to give choices to the individual consumer, to the parent and the young person. No government censorship, no blocking of content.
They have the right to say, “no, we don't want to see that stuff anymore.” And second, put a burden on social media when they know they're causing harm or should know. They have a responsibility to mitigate or prevent it and they will be held accountable.
And third, transparency, so that people understand how these algorithms work. Right now, no one does. I think the time has come to stop big tech from invading and ruining lives. And I'm very hopeful that the House will pass it. Obviously, we've succeeded in the Senate. 91 to 3 is virtually unprecedented in recent history for this kind of major consumer protection legislation, but I'm very hopeful that we can pass it equally strongly in the House.
Can we not compel those companies to send you an email or a notice saying, “we have your information, you can view it online, you can delete it, or you can say okay,” or whatever. Because I don't even know which companies have the information or where it's going.
Let me just say generally, giving more power and control to the individual is paramount. You know, people often think that the social media and big tech somehow is giving them a product. The data that it collects about you is what produces revenue for big tech. More eyeballs for longer periods of time means more information and data for big tech companies. That's the business model. And we've shown it not only in speculation or testimony, but in fact, in documents that we have from big tech itself, from those social media companies, whether it's Meta, Google, go down the list.
Finally, is there something that you want to impart to electorate in going out to vote?
I guess my main message is “Vote!” Instead of just complaining, go vote and send a message. I don't discourage you from complaining. And I enjoy listening to people who have criticism, very sincerely. That's why I go to all the fairs and festivals and parades and meetings and hearings. I really enjoy hearing from people. So you have a right to complain, but the best way to make a difference is to vote.
