Does "North America" Exist?

The Canadian International Council has produced a fantastic graphic that vividly depicts how deeply (or not) North America is integrated economically (See link). In fact, what this chart really depicts is a North American economic space dominated by two bilateral trading relationships; U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico. It is a classic hub-and-spoke situation. Unfortunately, this chart is also suggestive of some of what plagues trilateral relations. In recent years, the comparatively tenuous economic ties between Canada and Mexico have been reflected in the relative frostiness between the two over a host of issues (border security, immigration, visa requirements, regulatory cooperation, etc), with both Mexico City and Ottawa (but mostly Ottawa) electing to pursue issues with Washington bilaterally.

As I wrote back on January 21 (post linked here), the rebilateralization of North America is a troubling development. That economic ties between Canada and Mexico are not strong enough to have forestalled rebilateralization may ultimately prove an unfortunate development for both countries. 

POTUS and the Environment....

I wanted to make a quick post today because of an interesting article in Rolling Stone (Link to story here) about President Obama's efforts to address climate change. In addition to the interesting details on how he plans to address climate change through his executive authority via the EPA, the politics of last week's Keystone XL pipeline delay (my previous post) are also here.

All of it is part of a broader strategy on climate change by the administration, part of which was outlined in February's State of the Union Address. I wrote about that in my post from February 2 (linked here). It remains relevant and mirrors much of what Jeff Goodell says in his Rolling Stone piece, including how Obama's domestic strategy fits into global climate change talks scheduled for 2015. My scribbles didn't make it to Rolling Stone, but it's always nice to read something that mirrors some of your own analysis.

The Keystone Punt and Political Culture....

I was running around town today when my phone started buzzing with alerts from the various news sites I subscribe to. Several of them brought me the news that President Obama had once again delayed a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, this time indefinitely. I couldn't help but laugh. There are plenty of people that think this project is a "no brainer." Yet, as I have been arguing for some time now (see February 2 post, for example), there is little incentive for Obama to approve this project. It now appears that no decision will be made until at least the first quarter of 2015, at the earliest. By then, the approval picture will be even murkier since the President will officially be entering lame-duck territory, and will have to work harder to remain relevant as the jockeying for the 2016 nomination in both parties sucks up all of the political oxygen.

Campaign Finance Floodgates?

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a set of rules limiting the aggregate amount individual donors could contribute to candidates or political action committees. The 5-4 ruling (McCutcheon et al. vs. Federal Election Commission) has been viewed by many as opening the floodgates even further to the corrupting influence of money in the American political process (see story). While the ruling maintains limits on how much can be contributed to any single candidate or action committee, there are now effectively no limits on how many candidates or committees across the nation a wealthy donor could conceivably support.

This latest ruling comes in the wake of the major SCOTUS decision (Citizens United vs. FEC) back in January 2010 that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment and that the government cannot limit the capacity of firms or unions to spend money to support or oppose candidates in elections. Such organizations were still limited in their ability to contribute to specific candidates, but Citizens United took the gloves off where spending on independent advocacy: advertising.