The Right's uncompromising and rigidly inflexible governance exclusively in the interests of the rich has revealed one truth clearly standing. Minority rule by the economic elites is the antithesis of democracy, and is the road to totalitarianism and economic decline for the majority.
Americans are reawakening to the essential ideas of democracy. Money is not free speech, and a corporation is not a person endowed with inalienable rights by the Creator.
At least one senator has taken a stand for democracy in America. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has introduced his "Saving American Democracy Amendment". How far it gets depends on two factors. One is how much the members of the US Senate, House of Representatives and the president support democracy. The other factor is how much they are able to act independently of the stranglehold Big Money already has on our government, politicians and elections.
Nobody is holding their breath on this one, but it is still a vital step in the unending struggle of "Operation American Freedom".
Some frequently asked questions are answered after the text of the Amendment.
RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.
Resolved, That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures o three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’
------------------------------------------
Saving American Democracy Amendment:
Introduced by Congressman Ted Deutch (FL-19) and Senator Bernard Sanders (VT)
Frequently Asked Questions:
Why shouldn't corporations have the ability to influence our elections?
Our Constitution was written by the people, for the people. Corporations are entities formed in accordance with state, local, and federal laws that were all written by the people. These for-profit enterprises are established for business purposes and their rights and obligations only extend to their business purposes.
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision gave corporations the ability to drown out the will of the people by using the profits in their general treasury funds to influence elections. Now, corporations can use millions of dollars to defeat candidates that may threaten their bottom line. Everyday Americans simply cannot compete with the virtually limitless resources of corporations.
There are already Constitutional amendments out there. Why did you introduce this one?
We applaud the efforts of some of our colleagues in Congress who have introduced measures that aim to overturn Citizens United. However, passing a Constitutional amendment is no easy feat, which is why we believe we need a comprehensive amendment that truly ends corporate control of our elections.
Simply granting Congress the authority to regulate corporate spending in elections does not mean that Congress ever will act. Declaring that corporations are not people will do nothing to stop business associations, formed to promote the business interests of their member corporations, from pouring money into misleading attack ads against candidates that threaten their profits.
Citizens United undermined the very concept of campaign finance law. It declared caps on corporate spending in elections to be unconstitutional and as a result, the caps we already have in place, even for individual contributions to candidates, are also under threat. We also have corporations anonymously using nonprofit groups as fronts for their agendas. The Saving American Democracy Amendment restores to Congress the authority to write campaign finance laws that regulate and disclose all contributions and expenditures by all individuals and all types of organizations in our elections.
What is wrong with the Citizens United decision?
The Supreme Court overturned a century of precedent by ruling in Citizens United that corporations have a constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.
Before Citizens United, corporations had to abide by the ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce that limited their participation in elections to political action committees. PACS are funded by voluntary contributions from the employees of a corporation, as opposed to the general treasury fund. The Supreme Court also determined that limitations on corporate spending in elections were permissible in McConnell v. FEC, a decision that upheld portions of the McCain-Feingold reforms that aimed to reign in corporate electioneering.
Because of Citizens United, corporations are now allowed to tap into their profits to spend money advocating for or against candidates of their choosing. Even worse, they can do it anonymously.
By undermining the very concept of campaign finance laws, like the ones limiting individual contributions to candidates, the Citizens United decision even threatens a 1907 law passed by Congress prohibiting corporations from directly contributing to candidates. If we don’t take action, before we know it, the Supreme Court could rule that corporations can directly contribute to candidates for public office.
Is a Constitutional amendment really the best way to address unlimited corporate spending in elections?
Even if Congress had the political will to stand up to special interests and pass limitations on corporate spending in elections, such an effort would be unconstitutional as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. The majority opinion ruled that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as the American people and can spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds in elections. It is too late for Congress to place limits on corporate campaigning. The Framers of our Constitution gave us the power to amend the Constitution and it is imperative that we use it now.
Is your amendment just a giveaway to unions?
No. Labor unions are legally recognized as representatives of workers, who are natural persons with constitutional rights that deserve protections. While the Saving American Democracy Amendment does not prevent unions from using the dues and donations of their workers, it will subject their political activities to laws limiting spending and expenditures, just as it does other private entities and all individuals.
How will people and various types of entities be impacted by the Saving American Democracy Amendment?
Natural Persons: The Saving American Democracy Amendment makes clear that the rights enshrined in our Constitution are those of natural persons. However, the Saving American Democracy Amendment reaffirms the ability of Congress and the States to enact campaign finance laws that limit the amount of money individuals can spend to influence elections and requires political action committees to disclose their donations and operate with transparency.
Corporations: Corporations are not people with constitutional rights. They are for-profit entities established for business purposes. The Saving American Democracy amendment bans for-profit entities and limited liability companies from spending money in elections, whether it be through direct expenditures or to third party groups that aim to influence elections.
501(c)(6)'s: 501(c)6’s are associations formed to promote the business interests of their membership corporations, which are not people. Therefore, these entities are also banned from spending money in elections, and they must make public any contributions to third party groups.
Unions: Labor unions are legally recognized as representatives of workers, who are natural persons with constitutional rights that deserve protection. While the Saving American Democracy Amendment does not prevent unions from using dues and donations from the workers they represent on electoral advocacy, this amendment will subject them to laws limiting spending and expenditures, just as it does other private entities and individuals.
501(c)3 and 501(c)4 Groups: Nonprofit entities, like 501(c)(3) charities, churches, and hospitals, are not impacted by the Saving American Democracy Amendment. 501(c)(4) organizations, which are nonprofits established to promote social welfare, are permitted to participate in elections so long as it is not the organization’s primary purpose. While the American Red Cross, the Sierra Club, and most nonprofit organizations are entirely legitimate, many are props set up by corporations and their CEOs for the purpose of influencing elections. That is why the amendment enables Congress to regulate, limit, and require disclosure of these organizations' electoral expenditures. The Saving American Democracy Amendment gives us the means to effectively police corporations and a few billionaires from using nonprofits as fronts for their political agendas.
How does your amendment address the problem of corporations and very wealthy Americans from anonymously funding front groups to defeat candidates?
Our amendment bans corporations from using their profits in any election or ballot initiative before the people. By requiring that Congress include disclosure as part of our campaign finance laws, corporations that attempt to funnel money into front groups to influence elections will therefore face prosecution for violating the 28th amendment of the Constitution. The amendment also reestablishes the authority undermined by Citizens United for the States and for Congress to set limits and require disclosure of all individual contributions.
--------------
History will not judge us kindly if we as a nation fail to defend and promote democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
It is time to get corporate money out of politics and government. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to do it because of the Supreme Court. They cannot declare an Amendment unconstitutional.
What ever rules and regulations you impose on Corporations must be applied to Unions as well.
While I would not be strongly opposed to including Unions, there is a fundamental difference between Corporations and Unions.
Unions are made up of members. Members who's dues pay for the union management and union activities and who elect the union management. The union members ultimately pay for and control the functions of the Union.
Corporations are made up of employees whose labor makes products and/or services that the Corporation sells to pay for corporate management and corporate activities. The employees do not elect corporate management. The corporate employees have no control corporate management or corporate activities.
LOL
Good luck getting 38 states to ratify that.
Corporations are made up of employees
Wrong. Corporations are made up of stock holders.
free,
OK, stock holders. Stock holders who, individually, have very little say is how the corporation is run or control over its activities except for a wealthy few. Those activities are controlled by the big stock holders, because each share get a vote, not one vote per stock holder. Money, not individuals, control.
Gallup poll reports that of those polled 64% see Big Government as the biggest threat to America, folioed by Big Business @ just 26% and 8% for Big Labor.
Shocking!
Corporations are the root of all evil so far as government is concerned. They are a wholly corrupting and unnecessary influence, and they are the source of gridlock and badly-written legislation.
Corporate People are worht more than "Regular" People.
And their power has in many ways supplanted the power of governments and nation-states.
Take BP for instance. Is BP a person? Is BP an American?
Only 39% of BP shares are owned by "Americans". 40% is owned by Great Britain and 21% mainly by other European countries.
BP was founded in Britain in 1908, so it wasn't born here. It did merge with Amoco in 1998, so it "married" an American.
Yet, Republicons couldn't bow scrape or apologize fast enough for BP's Gulf Malfeasance.
But, if this was about George Soros, who was born outside the US, married an American and the majority of his wealth comes from overseas investments conservatives are apoplectic over Soros' supposed control over American politics.
Corporations are the root of all evil so far as government is concerned.
That would be voters. Corporations don't vote, voters do. If voters are influenced by nifty, shiny stuff dazzled before them it is their own fault they were influenced.
Jerry,
If nothing else, we have the "democracy litmus test" out there. I have no problem excluding union money from elections as long as corporate money is also excluded.
Free,
You have nothing to fear, the forces against democracy are winning.
Corporations are not stockholders. Stockholders are people who own corporate stock. A corporation can go bankrupt without the stockholders also doing so.
But alack and alas! This may cover it.
"I am a corporation. Hath not a corporation eyes? Hath not a corporation hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that."
Apologies to Shylock.
But this doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, so never mind.
"Corporations are people too". And..."Money is free speech".
There you go.
Anonymous,
Those meaningless percentages were about the same when we both elected and re-elected Clinton.
Shocked?
Gene,
That's 'cause Soros is the devil to the Bible thumpers, and Stalin, or even Hitler, to the elites. Or so I hear.
There's no way one can reason with that kind of mentality.
"meaningless percentages" , why are they meaningless? They point out again that you are in the minority in your views.
About the same, define "about"
Anonymous,
How are the percentages meaningful when they reflect the same sentiments as when Clinton was elected and re-elected? Do you really expect me to define "about the same"? Didn't you even look at the graph of the poll you cited?
I would guess not, when you can simply parrot the numbers without context.
Big government under the influence of neocons and corporate money is a concern to liberals. We don't like warrantless surveillance of citizens, wars of aggression based on falsehoods, voter suppression, and other abuses by Right Wing big government.
How about that? Too much nuance for you? And no, I will not define nuance for you.
Jack,
Corruption is precisely the issue. In what world, apart from the disordered mentality of the radical Right, is handing cash to politicians NOT corruption?
Big government under the influence of neocons and corporate money is a concern to liberals. We don't like warrantless surveillance of citizens, wars of aggression based on falsehoods, voter suppression, and other abuses by Right Wing big government.
What a crock of bull shit
Could you kindly explain why it is such? And while you're at it, please define "crock of bull shit".
Thank you.
Why it is such? Because it's easier to blame "corporations" than your own failed policy.
From Websters:
An association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
Are we now clear on what a corporation is?
That sure does not sound like a person to me. Too bad the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way.
Free,
You're response makes no sense regarding the question of warrantless surveillance of citizens, wars of aggression based on falsehoods, voter suppression, and other abuses by Right Wing big government. For these I blame lying, crooked and corrupt authoritarians and neocons, not corporations. Although partnerships occur in other tax breaks, subsidies, scams and perversions of public policy to favor corporate cronies.
Mr. Anonymous
Would this type of irrelevance, distraction, and fallacy from Mr. Free be an example of a crock?
Only your enlighened words can see us through this.
You're response makes no sense regarding the question of warrantless surveillance
You may have noticed I don't talk about that subject. Maybe one day, but while I'm subject to the uniform code of military justice I frankly am not allowed to by law. I want to make clear I'm not some secret squirrel guy who plays with that stuff - but all members of the Department of Defense are prevented by law from discussing ongoing operations, capabilities of equipment, or the nature of and use of that equipment. I'm not looking to get demoted, fined, imprisoned or have my security clearance revoked. Anderson here thinks Soldiers are not allowed to have political opinions or share those opinions on blogs. He's wrong, we are. However, certain speech is not free, and obviously classified stuff falls under that. My opinion of the job performance of say - Barak Obama (or any elected official) is obviously not classified, however government intelligence operations clearly are. However corporations I'm authorized to talk about all day - so I'll be sticking to that.
As to the validity of the GWOT as executed by GWB, we've had that discussion 100 times and I think by now we're all clear on where I stand on it.
So, free, under the military code of justice you are free to criticize your superior officers, including YOUR commander-in-chief?
Dave,
Corporations have certainly reaped huge benefits from "warrantless surveillance of citizens, wars of aggression ..., and other abuses by Right Wing big government" such as the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc. Interesting how the Right Wing big government makes everything a war on something.
Jerry,
Declaring a "War" on something, not a formal declaration of war, mind you, is their trump card. They know most Americans generally don't have the information, courage or brains to oppose their agenda. Wrapping the flag around their wars, seizures of power and wealth, and other methods of crushing democracy has usually worked for them.
As we know the only war they hate is the "war on poverty", that only exists in their minds.
God bless Rep. Ted Deutch and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Making this amendment the law of the land is one of the most important things that can be done to repair, protect and preserve our damaged democracy.
The following is a comment I made on Heathen Republican's blog this evening. I think it's relevant.
----
It's OK to place limitations on corporations, period. What the state creates the state has a right and obligation to maintain oversight of, regulate, and, for sufficient cause, put an end to.
If a majority of citizens, acting through their elected representatives or by referendum, decide corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute to candidates, advertise for or against politicians, or otherwise get mixed up in the political process, they have that right, absolutely.
When that is done — and several states have done it in the past — no individual associated with the corporation loses his or her individual right to contribute to candidates, advertise for or against politicians, make speeches, write op-eds, letters to the editor, etc., or vote.
So, there is no harm to the rights of the individual.
. . .Individuals have inherent rights not granted (or grantable) by government and not to be denied by government under our laws and Constitution.
Groups, such as churches, unions, fraternal orders, professional associations and corporations all have rights granted by governments and subject to revocation by governments.
Just as individuals are distinct entities, no matter what organizations, or how many organizations, they belong to, groups and organizations are distinct entities separate from the individuals within them.
SW,
What you said.
including YOUR commander-in-chief?
Yes, because he is also an elected official. We do not loose the right to free speech when we enlist - so long as we do not reveal classified material and do not engage in any political activity in uniform or falsely clame to speak officially for a government agency or department. For example - Soldiers have a right to write letters to the editor in news papers about political topics - and if you've ever read the Army Times... boy do they - as well as electronic media which is covered under the same regulation. It's when I get paid to do it thing can get fishy... but obviously I'm not paid to comment on this blog... which for purposes of Army regulation is considered no different than a private conversation had in person.
please define "crock of bull shit"
Google it.
Google under "Anonymous"?
Bernie Sanders is a Socialist! And Socialism has NEVER worked :)
As long as we're talking about opinion polls, roughly 80% of Americans disagree with the Citizens United decision. This cuts across all political party lines.
I am writing this to address the liberals here, not the conservatives. If you are a conservative, skip the comment. I am not trying to introduce ad hominem logic. I truly am trying to slightly adjust the arguments of some of those in the liberal camp. If you are conservative, stop reading this comment now. If not:
OK, I am sure everyone is aware of this, but ...
One:
Unions are NOT the same things as corporations.
Unions represent the people who make up the union.
Corporations represent profit for the corporation.
Unions advocate for people. Corporations advocate for profit.
Two:
Unions should NOT have a voice in elections. That is not their purpose and it certainly violates the concept of one man, one vote, which is what we are talking about, I believe.
If you want campaign finance reform, as any American who favors democracy over plutocracy would, you MUST accept that unions should not have a political voice, as they are not a person. Those who make up the union have votes, which is their equal voice.
Three:
As I expressed on Heathen's site, something for which he seems to have no answer, if the rich can contribute wealth, he provides the most needed resource, to a politician's campaign, and even though there is technically no fiduciary relationship, there is a de facto one. The politicians must represent their constituency, meaning the ones that support their campaigns. Bus drivers cannot give much support. They do not have the means. The politician cannot survive representing the bus driver. He MUST decide which rich organizations and individuals he will represent if he wishes to continue his career of “civil service.” If he must represent the wealthy only, then this is not democracy.
The Supreme Court has historically stopped scenarios that violated the concept of one man, one vote, even when they had to step on the toes of other democratic ideas to do so (See Baker v. Carr, for example). They did this because they knew that if you circumvent the very democratic process itself, there is no democracy to defend.
The fundamental disconnect between liberal and conservative ideology is that conservatives are content to allow the unchecked evolution of capitalism in a democracy. That evolution, unchecked, naturally becomes plutocracy. Conservatives seem to consider the right the free speech of made up entities to be more sacrosanct than the need to preserve the democracy that guarantees free speech in the first place. Liberals are not willing to support “free speech,” if it circumvents and equal electoral process.
Why? Most conservatives themselves are losing their democratic voices also. No politician cares what Free, Just the Facts, Heathen thinks about anything as an individual. Pandering to their needs will do no good for the politicians career. They need the ability to affect the thoughts and minds of the people by exposing them to repeated repetition, which creates “rote learning,” which is what influences most votes, and that costs money. So, why do conservatives fight to circumvent democracy and to become a causality of their own efforts? That is the question we must address. That is the problem.
They do this because they repeatedly hear that it is “right.” Hearing that it is right is more powerful than any argument to the contrary if you hear it often enough. What argument can you present that will change their minds? They are told things like their free speech is in jeopardy if those hired to represent them are not funded and sustained by the most wealthy among us, and they belief it.
How do you challenge that kind of raw faith?
John,
Thank you.
How do you challenge that kind of raw faith?
One cannot challenge that kind of faith any more easily than a Moonie's faith in his cult leader. (We all remember Bush family friend and inner circle Republican behind the conservative Washington Times, Sun Myung Moon.)
They are indoctrinated to regard everything said by those other than FOX(R), Republicans and other cult leaders as a "crock of BS".
And they get very angry when we say so.
They only need to remember a few things. The corporate media is liberal and liberals are socialist commies destroying America. Above all, they must agree with whatever the rich want, do, and say.
Pretty simple, yet so very effective.
While Liberals wallow in the swamps of their own concepts of fairness, equality, justice, civil liberties, (before and beyond the Second Amendment) health care access, environmental conditions, labor conditions, the public good, the general welfare of the nation, and democracy, the ideological true believers of the Right care nothing for those notions. They are unencumbered with such values and march lock-step into the authoritarian New Amerikan Order.
They are winning. The corporate media, Supreme Court, and Big Money are certainly not obstructing them.
No politician cares what Free, Just the Facts, Heathen thinks about anything as an individual.
I've worked around politicians from both parties. Neither side gives a shit about one vote.
Hence why I donate to the NRA, Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute and Freedom Works, and the American Legion. You're right, one vote is a joke. You have to be a joiner to make what you want to happen, happen in politics.
Free,
You have to be a joiner to make what you want to happen, happen in politics.
A joiner with cash on hand, my friend.
We have to get back to a place closer to one man one vote or we do not have a democracy. A place where the wealthy have the power to unduly influence "everyone's" representatives is not democracy.
I will pretend this matters and point out that it is not what the venerated Founders, blessed be They, had in mind.
If you care about the original intention of the constitution, you will realize that oligarchy of any kind was NOT what they wanted.
If only the wealthy can influence politicians very much, then oligarchy is what we have.
The only branch of government that has fought this in any substantial way is the Supreme Court, which was then accused, repeatedly, of being activist.
They are (or rather were) trying to uphold the intention of the formation of this nation.
Now, the Supreme Court is being stacked in accordance with partisan desires. A potential justice's politics are the primary criterion for his appointment.
Do you see a problem with this?
John,
As usual you nail it, solidly. Unfortunately, I think conservatives believe the ends justify the means. And their end is an oligarchy. They see no problem with the wealth of a country concentrated in the hands of a few. They wish to be the few.
A joiner with cash on hand, my friend.
Hence the donations. I give money to groups who support things I want - if they don't do what I want I hold the money. It's not much, but together it's quite a bit. I thought you liked collectives?
point out that it is not what the venerated Founders, blessed be They, had in mind.
Certainly not, but they had slavery in mind too. They weren't always right.
If you care about the original intention of the constitution
Intent is irrelevant - each founder had an individual intent. What it says is what matters.
point out that it is not what the venerated Founders, blessed be They, had in mind.
I would point out also< I'm much more interested in what I want than what people who have been dead over 200 years wanted. One thing we both agree on however, was that government is not the solution to most problems.
Jerry Critter,
No Conservatives do not to see the wealth of a country concentrated in the hands of a few.
Conservatives want the wealth of a nation to be in the hands of the many who created it, and to have a society that rewards those who start with nothing and create their own wealth.
While taking care of those who can not provide for themselves due to their mental or health issues, not to their lack of effort.
Anon,
Then admit your policies are wrong because they are creating the wealth of the nation in the hands of the few.
Jerry,
I'll admit the largest roadblock to becoming wealthy in America today is our own government.
Here is what you need to admit, you believe that it is the job of government to redistribute the wealth of the wealthy.
It is the job of government to get out of the way of those of its citizens who want to become wealthy. If a citizen doesn't want to put forth the effort to become wealthy,(and in a free country, that is a choice we all can make) it is not the role of government to take care of this person.
With our highly trained, well paid unionized, education system, there is no reason why a graduate from a free public high school should not be able to, with their relentless pursuit of achievment, become wealthy on their own. If this is not the case, then the first place to look to find out why is the public education system. Find out why, after the billions of dollars being spent YEARLY at the local, state and federal level on education, via the Dept of Education on down to the local level, is not producing graduates who are able to become wealthy (now that is anything over $65,000 a yr.) through their own continued efforts.
Conservatives haven't created the roadblocks to BECOMING wealthy. The roadblocks today are created by our own government under the guise of a misconstrued belief that the wealthy are are only so because they are lucky or criminal, but never because they worked hard for it.
Free,
I would point out also< I'm much more interested in what I want than what people who have been dead over 200 years wanted. One thing we both agree on however, was that government is not the solution to most problems.
I make this argument all the time. I have argument many times that what the Founders wanted is completely irrelevant. I only bring them up, because I thought it would be relevant to you.
I also just made the point that there is mostly no such thing as the intent of the Founders (at Healthen’s site). They were individuals and could not agree on anything. There was, as I noted there, a single exception. They did want all agree that the will of the people should never be supplanted by the will of a minority in government or to a minority anywhere else.
One man, one vote, was very important to them. This whole desire to have a plutocracy is not a democratic idea.
It is not the job of government to "to redistribute the wealth of the wealthy". It is the job of government to "promote the general Welfare" (preamble of the Constitution) and "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" (Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution).
Jerry,
Now if it were the government's job to redistribute wealth TO the wealthy, it's done a heckuva job over the past decades. Tax cuts, subsidies, no-bid contracts, corporate welfare and de-regulation have allowed a spectacular redistribution of wealth to the top.
As for the poor and middle class? Time for austerity, to teach us a lesson and keep us in our place. We are to have no voice in a corporatized government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
John Myste said...
"A joiner with cash on hand, my friend."
Yes, "cash is king" -- literally.
To everyone who favors democracy for all (which apparently doesn't include Free0352, among unnamed others), please sign this Saving American Democracy Amendment petition.
Thanks!
JG,
Thanks for the link.
Wonder why the "liberal media" isn't showing this Amendment and link 24/7? Probably for the same reason they pay so little attention to the new Defense Authorization proposal for unlimited military detention of civillians.
You'd almost think they were a bunch of corporate appeasers instead of the vanguard of liberalism the Righties say they are.
In case you are wondering why the "liberal media" isn't covering it... not to mention Democrat party types, it's because unlike you guys they are realists who understand people have a right to get together into groups, be those groups corporations, unions, or political action committees and work together to push government in their direction. Liberals do it too. You know that. This "one man, one vote" idea is anti-freedom. It's saying a guy like me can't pool resources with some other like minded people and donate to my 100% all time favorite PAC the National Rifle Association to make sure pro gun legislation gets passed. It takes away our -dare I say it- collective power and isolates the voter. The isolated voter is a powerless voter. Politicians could care less about one vote. They like nice big baskets of votes, and the power of the citizen lies in groups- not the individual. What your little idea here would do, is neuter the voter. You would increase the power of "the elites" who individually would be quite a force to be reckoned with should you ban the ability of voters to get together. Heck, the people trying to pass that thing John linked who are lobbying for it now would effectively ban themselves. It's political suicide.
Nobody is talking about eliminating the "right to get together into groups, be those groups corporations, unions, or political action committees and work together to push government in their direction". We just want to eliminate their ability to pass out buckets of money in the process.
Lobby all you want, just leave the money to individuals.
Great Jerry, I'm glad you see it my way!!
It's not governments job to redistribute wealth and in order to promote the general welfare what better way to do so but to get out of the way of those who want to work and acquire wealth.
It's stupid Dave that doesn't get it.
Free0352, you incredibly claimed...
"This 'one man, one vote' idea is anti-freedom."
WTF!
It's the epitome of freedom! Where I come from, it's called democracy.
So I guess you welcome the trashing of the Constitution, huh?
Anon,
You are the one that doesn't get it. Dave gets it perfectly.
Dave gets it perfectly. That "if it were the government's job to redistribute wealth TO the wealthy, it's done a heckuva job over the past decades."
But you see that's not govt's job. and that's not what they have been doing. What they have been doing is keeping working people from becoming wealthy with the rules, regulations and taxes they have inflicted on anyone who wants to start up a business. And to be blunt, the govt hasn't done a good job of wealth redistribution if that is what they set out to do.
So WTF is govt good for, hiring people to do what, to produce what, to sell what, to service what?
Anon,
You seem to have missed it on two points.
1. You seem to have missed the capitalized TO in Dave's quote that you used. Redistribution of wealth to the Wealthy has been very successful.
2. The "rules, regulations and taxes they have inflicted on anyone" have improved the general welfare which is their purpose. It is not their purpose to redistribute wealth.
Really?
The "rules, regulations and taxes they have inflicted on anyone" have improved the general welfare which is their purpose. It is not their purpose to redistribute wealth.
So how would you deal with the stopping of the pipeline from Canada that would create thousands of good paying Union jobs, as well as start to address our energy needs? Great rules and regulations for the general welfare improvement?
Yes
JG and Jerry,
Thomas Frank nailed it on most Republican voters. They are like the French Revolution in reverse, demanding less democracy for the people and more power for the aristocracy.
It also fits the mold for the Tea Cult naming themselves after colonial American outrage over the corporate coddling tax cuts for the British East India Tea Company.
And they wonder why we call them dupes...
It's the epitome of freedom! Where I come from, it's called democracy.
Really? Where did you come from? Democracy is a tool, it isn't an end unto itself. Democracy gave us American Slavery, the Indian Removal Act, elected Adolph Hitler in Germany, and killed thousands of people during the French Revolution via beheading. Democracy does NOT equal freedom in every case. Like I said, it is a tool like a hammer. Just like a hammer can be used to build a house or smash one down Democracy can be used to free a people or enslave a people.
If we all voted on this blog for you to shave your head, would you be free when we grabbed you and forced you down and shaved your head?
Democracy has to be tempered by limited government backed up by LAW - as in our case in the United States by the courts which are anti-Democratic in nature. They have to be, because that way they can enforce law without fear.
Democracy doesn't protect your rights in the United States, ask any black person, law protects your rights.
That is what the Constitution is all about son.
. We just want to eliminate their ability to pass out buckets of money in the process.
You're wrong here, that's exactly what your side has been saying, didn't you know?
Take for example the Citizens United case you all hate so much... the one the Supreme Court supposedly declared "Money was free speech."
Well, that wasn't true. Think I'm kidding? Go call up any politician right now and try to give him 2 million dollars. I know you don't have it, but they don't know that. Just try it? Here is a list of how much you can give to a given cause.
What Citizens United did, was make a privately funded film critical of Hillary Clinton to be released around the 2007 Democrat Party Primary. That's all. I'm pretty sure people coming together in a group (Citizens United) to make a movie is an exercise in free speech - and the Supreme Court agreed when they sided with CU against the Federal Election Commission. Liberals as you well know howled in rage against the decision - because certain progressives like Dave here on this blog don't think people should have the freedom to organize and speak their mind. People like Dave support laws like McCain Fiengold that put the FEC in charge of political speech during certain election time frames.
As for the French Revolution Dave - is that what you want? Mass executions in the street? Yeah, I'll go ahead and be against that. Yes, the movement that publizized the Guillotine used to kill people for their political views... that's freedom boy. NOT!
Free,
Now there's a fanciful leap.
As for the French Revolution Dave - is that what you want? Mass executions in the street?
No, but thanks for the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
It is amusing how you like to reduce our advocacy for voting rights, democratic representation of the majority, and Constitutional protection of minority rights into a simplistic and false "mob rule".
FOX(R) and Rush also love that tactic.
I'm impressed by the Right's stubborn cognitive dissonance in their alleged support of our Bill of Rights wrapped in utter contempt for democracy.
But it’s not fascism when Republicans do it. I'm sure that will comfort those who end up shackled in a stress position to a cold wet floor in room 101.
The Republicans have to get their funding from somewhere being the Democrats already have the rich Hollywood market cornered,not only in millions of dollars but also in free advertising,something money can't buy.
If Unions can use Union dues to donate to Democrats then so should corporations be able to.
What should be illegal is public unions using using tax payer money to donate to a particularly party .
Corporations employee people so if it is in theri busines interest it is also in the interst of the people they employee so they actually ae persons.
Ah yes the French Revolution... that glorious time for freedom that lasted from 1793-1794. A time the French fondly remember as la Terreur or THE TERROR. A time when 19,594 people were executed by guillotine (called "The national razor" of France) and another estimated 25,000 additional citizens were hung, shot, drawn and quartered or killed in some other I'm sure pleasant and humane way. Mob rule. In. Action. That is the progressive view of freedom. It's not one I am glad to say I share. The guillotine - the progressive symbol of freedom. I'll take individual rights and protections for the minority for 1000 Alex.
Free0352, you astonishingly claimed...
"Democracy is a tool, it isn't an end unto itself", and also, "Democracy has to be tempered by limited government backed up by LAW..."
No, you're wrong (not surprisingly), but you're (sorta) on the right track. Democracy has to be tempered, true, but not by law, as you contend, but rather by justice. Certainly all totalitarian governments throughout history have had "laws", but none were concerned with justice. I'll refer to Aristotle to make my point:
"Now a fundamental principle of the democratic form of constitution is liberty - that is what is usually asserted, implying that only under this constitution do men participate in liberty, for they assert this as the aim of every democracy. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution."
You condescendingly concluded with...
"That is what the Constitution is all about son."
Only in your warped mind, and within your warped sense of values, which doesn't make your mistaken reasoning valid.
By the way, please don't refer to me as "son". I'm old enough to be your father.
"The roadblocks today are created by our own government under the guise of a misconstrued belief that the wealthy are are only so because they are lucky or criminal, but never because they worked hard for it."
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but the above caught my eye.
What "roadblocks" exactly does that commenter speaking of? Tax rates are lower now than they were in the '50 and '60s. Corporations are doing better under Mr. Obama than they did under Mr. Bush, and the corporate CEOs are raking in the kind of income that Croesus would envy.
"Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.
Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now)."
SOURCE
And Mr. Obama has been a very, very good friend to the wealthy:
"The largest banks are larger than they were when Obama took office and are nearing the level of profits they were making before the depths of the financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.
Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 21 / 2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight of the George W. Bush administration, industry data show."
So my question is, where exactly are the "roadblocks" the commenter wrote about? It appears "government" [backed up by evidence in the links] has been exceptionally good to business under the Obama administration.
I should have written that government has been extremely good to businesses, corporations, and the wealthy under the Obama administration. The wealthy have become wealthier under the president whom the rightwingers call a "Socialist."
The amendment is silly. Kind of like the Republicans flag amendment. Just because something reflects rationality does not mean we should change the Constitution. Please just leave the Constitution alone and continue fighting amongst yourselves. Why fuck up a good thing (the Constitution) just because you have not won the judicial day on your issue?
Lynn Samuels pasted away Christmas Eve.
She was a true liberal, and will be missed by those who do not believe in censoring conservative view points.
She worked for and was friends with Matt Drudge, and believed President Obama was not telling the truth about his birth certificate. Yet her liberal positions were well thought out,her own and not the results of repeating the DNC talking point of the day.
RIP Ms. Samuels.
1) The anti-censorship part of Citizens United was great, and should be kept. But get rid of the corporate personhood thing, of course.
2) I cannot support Bernie's idea mainly because of the loophole. He should be consistent and ban political influence from ALL organizations, not just the ones he dislikes.
Free said: "What Citizens United did, was make a privately funded film critical of Hillary Clinton to be released around the 2007 Democrat Party Primary. That's all."
Yes. Americans criticizing ruling elites. The real reason we have the First Amendment, to protect this. Yet, under the law that was overturned by the supreme court, such criticism was criminalized.
I've been out a lot lately. Forgive the delay due to screening.
Shaw,
Thank you. You see it in the truest perspective.
We don't expect an explanation along with parroted talking points.
okjimm,
Free's doctrine of "flexible reality" is what amuses us so much here.
dmarks,
I agree that union money should also be kept out of elections.
I'm old enough to be your father.
So act your age and not a child demanding more of other people's money. Grown ups don't do that.
As for Justice, one man's justice is another man's dictatorship. I'll go with law.
As for Oki's comments on slavery, it seems he's never heard of the 2/3 compromise... or the civil war.
As for the National Socialist Party, it won a majority in the in the Reichstag on July 31, 1932. On Feb 27, 1932 Hitler convinced the Reichstag to give the Chancellor (Hitlers elected post) dictatorial powers - which he assumed shortly after that date. German Citizens voted for the Nazi party and it's elected representatives instealled him as dictator.
The first act of Adolph Hitler was to limit the power of the Courts and rule of law.
But get rid of the corporate personhood thing
Corporations are groups of people. Groups of people have 1st Amendment Rights the same as you or I. For example, the NY Times is a corporation. Under your interpretation, they have no 1st Amendment Rights.
Yes. Americans criticizing ruling elites. The real reason we have the First Amendment,
Yet, under the law that was overturned by the supreme court, such criticism was criminalized.
How? It was McCain Fiengold that was criminalizing free speech. the Citizen's United Ruling liberated it.
Free... you continue to see 'facts' that do not exist...
your original statement, which I rebutted was...
"Democracy is a tool, it isn't an end unto itself. Democracy gave us American Slavery, the Indian Removal Act, elected Adolph Hitler in Germany,"
I factually pointed out that slavery is not an institution of Democracy, but existed well before there was democracy in America....and again, Hitler was NOT elected to any post in Germany...ever.
And your rebuttal ... "As for the National Socialist Party, it won a majority in the in the Reichstag on July 31, 1932." is false.
the truth... "The July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany’s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body." It distinctly was not a majority....
You do just make this stuff up, right, to suit yourself and that's a fact. Your credibility is in question.
Post a Comment