Happy New Year! Get ready for a full day of listening to your friends, family, and every D-lister on the morning shows drone on and on about their 2015 resolutions. Diets, new jobs, and all the usual suspects will make the rounds no matter who you talk to, but here are some resolutions celebrities and politicians should be making if they were really being honest with themselves.

Rep. Michael Grimm

Start paying taxes; stop threatening to throw reporters off balconies.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sony Co-Chair Amy Pascal

Leave racially insensitive comments to unfiltered grandparents during the holidays and not in emails to colleagues.

Latest Sony email hack shows Scott Rudin and Amy Pascal making racist jokes about Obama http://t.co/RrNLdhplvR

— NY Daily News Gossip (@NYDNgossip) December 11, 2014

Justin Bieber

Start the Justin Bieber “Center for Kids Who Can’t Give Depositions Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.” Also, avoid Interpol.  

President Obama

Figure out a way to differentiate the Baltimore Ravens roster from the Freaks and Geeks cast.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Kim Kardashian

Learn how the internet works; determine whether or not it’s actually “breakable.”

The 10 most popular stories of the year on http://t.co/M1Ru3U4Ixe http://t.co/SQUr0yv8JQ pic.twitter.com/OwzDevBv0Y — PAPER Magazine (@papermagazine) December 31, 2014

Zooey Deschanel

Don’t break any more horses.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Sen. Ted Cruz

Stop practicing puppy dog face in mirror. Face is beginning to get stuck that way.

Courtesy of Twitchy.com.

Taylor Swift

Bring back surprised face–people seem to miss it.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Shonda Rhimes

Take over ABC, rename Shondaland. Make sure all programming includes strong female lead with some flaws, an emotional kiss scene, and an improbable natural catasrophe.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Charlie Crist

Track down promised campaign donation from the United Fan Makers of America.

Hon. John Dingell

Keep being awesome.

Proud Michigan resident & dear friend @grahamdavis got a bulldog today and named it Dingell. I see no similarities. pic.twitter.com/aqKwGwMM9Y

— Rep. John Dingell (@john_dingell) October 19, 2014

Mama June Shannon

Take a break from dating.

Courtesy of Giphy.com.

Former Rep. Trey Radel

Stop throwing stones from glass house.

Ya give him a breathalyzer test every-time he votes…duh http://t.co/lX5ojfqnqu — starchy (@me_starchy) December 31, 2014

What other resolutions do you think they should make? Let us know in the comments.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolutions Celebs & Politicians Should Make for 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably gathered how important I think it is for a person of power to present themselves as far as their sartorial choices go; however, that doesn’t mean I don’t see the inherent double standard in society’s speculation over what women in power wear. From first ladies to political candidates, the public loves to ask a woman about what she wears and why she wears it. In fact, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself who once shot down an interviewer’s inquiry about what designers she likes to wear with the now-famous retort, “Would you ever ask a man that question?” Personally my answer would be yes, but I’m fully aware that I’m in the minority here.

The recently-opened exhibit at the Design Museum in London titled “Women Fashion Power” says a lot about how society tends to care more about how female politicians dress than it does about males. While sometimes there’s a correlation between a politician’s confidence and his appearance — a la Obama’s tan suit — clothes shouldn’t affect voters’ opinions on how well a person can lead, especially women.

While men may appear to have fewer options outside of the accepted black suit as formal and professional attire, tailoring is always key. If his jacket is too big, then the suit will end up wearing him as opposed to the other way around. People don’t want to vote for a walking suit, they want to vote for a powerful and trustworthy man — or woman.

“We want you to see firsthand that a solid education and the willingness to work hard is really at the core of what it’s going to take to achieve your goals: education and hard work.” —The First Lady to #FashionEdu Thank you to all the leaders in the fashion industry who encouraged the students at today’s Fashion Education Workshop to #ReachHigher in their education.

A photo posted by First Lady Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) on Oct 10, 2014 at 6:07pm PDT

Yet from Wendy Davis’ famous sneaker-and-skirt-suit ensemble to Hilary Clinton’s rainbow of pantsuits, voters love to refer to a woman of power by her clothing choices. First Ladies like Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy are constantly scrutinized, or lauded, for what they wear to every single appearance they make. The press couldn’t stop talking about the fact that Mrs. Obama finally wore American couturier Oscar de la Renta to her fashion education panel just days before the designer’s passing. The first lady has expressed her disinterest in fashion in the past, so why is she trying to fit into the fashion crowd now? Is this the only way for her to solidify her position of power? The exhibit in London even starts with fashions of ancient Egyptian leaders like queen Hatshepsut, but surely ancient male leaders dressed just as ornately. Yet we only ever talk about King Tut’s naked corpse.

Clothes definitely play an important role in any public figure’s reputation. But why does the public care so much more about what a “woman of power” wears than they do about the president’s and other male politicians’ clothes? All I know is that when I go to the ballot box next Tuesday, any women I happen to vote for will be because I trust in their ability to lead based on their policies and past actions. The fact that they dress cute is merely an added bonus.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Fashion Such an Important Issue for Women in Power? appeared first on Law Street.

Limits on campaign contributions continue to slip away, with high courts ruling against them. First, in the Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, and then on April 24, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty struck down donation limits in New York. Surprisingly, Crotty acknowledged that there is a link between campaign finance and corruption. Unfortunately, he felt compelled to rule against the measures aimed to prevent this phenomena due to the possibility of infringing on first amendment rights. Many feel that this issue is black and white; namely, that campaign donations are a right of free speech or that they are ruining democracy. Yet, I think it is fair to say that the judicial branch is in a difficult position. A majority of Americans want campaign finance reform, yet, any attempt to do so could be a violation of constitutional rights (so it seems based on recent rulings).

While I would like to see reform, I acknowledge that there is a more concerning problem underlying the push for campaign contribution limits, and it starts with the obvious question, “why exactly do people want to limit contributions in the first place?” The desire to limit campaign contributions arises from the fear of a distorted power distribution. Simply, the people who have the greatest wealth will have the greatest influence in politics.

In order to run a strong campaign, you need a lot of capital, and thus, politicians require significant financial backing. If someone voluntarily provides a politician with large financial donations, then by de facto the politician owes that financial backer, and hence, the corruption referred to by Crotty ensues. The fact that finances are so important in political elections principally gives citizens of wealth more potential value and gives them greater potential access to politicians than regular citizens.

But let’s back up for a minute. We need to ask the next question that naturally follows, “why does it require a lot of money to win elections?” And this question gets us to the root of the problem. Politicians need a substantial amount of campaign finances in order to capitalize on the public’s immediate perception. Unfortunately, Americans are not educated on domestic and international politics and it shows in the polls. As Cato Unbound reports,

numerous polls show that voters grossly underestimate the percentage of federal spending that goes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, while greatly overestimating the amount spent on foreign aid[..] Widespread political ignorance isn’t limited to spending and health care[..] only 42% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial.

American’s knowledge regarding international affairs shows even less promise. So how does the American electorate make political decisions? They rely on heuristics in order to decide whom and what to vote for. A heuristic is essentially a cognitive shortcut that allows us to make decisions quickly, and one of the most commonly employed cognitive shortcuts is the availability heuristic. In the words of Albert Phung, when using this heuristic, people “rely on immediate examples that come to mind. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that if something can be recalled, it must be important.”

Political campaigns know this, and that is why they are constantly trying to get as much attention as possible, which requires a lot of money. Does the term ‘soundbites’ ring a bell? If people hear what a certain candidate is going to do over and over, they begin to think it is important.

The reason we fear unlimited campaign contributions is because the American people do not make educated voting decisions and instead, they are heavily influenced by how many soundbites they are subjected to. If every person were to decide who to vote for based on their own research, it wouldn’t matter how much money politicians raise and spend. But the sad fact remains that American’s do not do the research. My favorite example of this is the Associated Press Report Homer Simpson, Yes — 1st Amendment ‘Doh,’ survey results. According to the AP, “the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared to just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.”

[ThinkProgress] [Investopedia] [Gallup] [SupremeCourt.Gov]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured image courtesy of [Wonderlane via Flickr]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Donation Limits: Why We Really Need Them appeared first on Law Street.