Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Can we have less "lesser"
Good candidates are running across the country, and pretty much every Democrat is better than his or her opponent. But the national leadership has not crafted a compelling program comparable to the New Deal or the Great Society (to say nothing of MAGA). They haven't even tried, the closest thing being the proposal to use the tax cut to pay teachers, a pr stunt not a program.
Many of the most compelling candidates (in Texas, Florida and Georgia, for example) owe little or nothing to the national party. In many cases, the "great candidates" the DNC and DCCC did recruit are ex-military and veterans of the security state apparatus, which means they will not be of great help in turning swords into plowshares, an essential project if we are to find solutions to our festering problems in such areas as poverty, infrastructure, housing, education, and health care.
When Republicans got the polls, they know what they're going to get, as awful as that is. The same cannot be said for Democrats, who once again are being asked to vote against rather than for something. Will the Democrats as a party fight for infrastructure spending, progressive taxes, Medicare for All, a living wage and universal basic income? Who can say? Are they going to take on the military-industrial giants and the security state? Not likely, but who really knows.
The House and maybe the Senate are at stake; it would be helpful to know what the stakes really are.
And, parenthetically, in a census year, the outcomes in races for governor mansions and state legislatures will determine the makeup of the House for at least a decade.
$$$$
If you're keeping count, J.B. Pritzker, the venture capitalist who is attempting to buy his way into the Illinois statehouse, gave his campaign another $7 million last week, putting him at more than $56 million in self-funding for the Democratic primary fight against Bobby Kennedy's son, philanthropist Chris Kennedy.
Resource
From the early hours of the morning until late in the evening, politicians are breaking bread and sipping cocktails with donors. Political Party Time* lets you know who’s fundraising with whom, and where.
*Political Party Time is a project of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for open government globally and uses technology to make government more accountable to all.
*Political Party Time is a project of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for open government globally and uses technology to make government more accountable to all.
The Duopoly
A provision "Congress snuck into the spending the bill will be more galling to some, because it amounts to a pay raise for the two unpopular political parties: It raises the $32,400 maximum that donors could give the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee to a whopping $324,000 per year, gutting what’s left of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. The Washington Post says this was inserted on page 1,599 of a 1,603-page bill."
The rest of the story: Sneak Attack? Congress Slips Controversial Measures Into Spending Bill (PopularResistance)
The rest of the story: Sneak Attack? Congress Slips Controversial Measures Into Spending Bill (PopularResistance)
Citizens united against Citizens United
This is the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment passed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee:
SECTION 1: To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
SECTION 2. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
What's to be done?
One idea: How about agreeing to a list of immediately achievable demands -- say, unfettered voter registration, weekend balloting, instant runoffs, election of the President and Vice President by majority vote not the electoral college, public financing of campaigns, free media for candidates, perhaps proportional representation -- driving a national march beginning in, say, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland OR, Seattle, Houston, Miami and Portland ME -- merging in various centers along the way -- say, Denver, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland, St Louis, New Orleans, Atlanta, New York City and lesser venues in between -- and culminating on Pennsylvania Avenue with the firm commitment not to leave until all demands are met? The logistical problems would be formidable but not insurmountable, and the Occupy Movement already has organizers and infrastructure in place all over the country.
Obviously, there are many problems -- the crumbling infrastructure, the slashing of budgets for public services, the unjust tax structure, the misallocation of public resources to military spending and corporate giveaways, the destruction of free public education, the absence of affordable universal health care -- that impact much more directly on people's lives. But the adoption of measures to make the country more democratic and thus more responsive to the demands of its citizens would be a solid beginning down the path to solving deeper and more intractable problems.
There is an army of outraged people in this nation, many of them unemployed and facing bleak futures. Are they ready to enlist?
Obviously, there are many problems -- the crumbling infrastructure, the slashing of budgets for public services, the unjust tax structure, the misallocation of public resources to military spending and corporate giveaways, the destruction of free public education, the absence of affordable universal health care -- that impact much more directly on people's lives. But the adoption of measures to make the country more democratic and thus more responsive to the demands of its citizens would be a solid beginning down the path to solving deeper and more intractable problems.
There is an army of outraged people in this nation, many of them unemployed and facing bleak futures. Are they ready to enlist?
Change Watch: In 2008, the Left sized up Barack Obama with all the critical acumen of prepubescent girls at a Justin Bieber concert
Is this the end of the affair?
During the late presidential campaign, if you asked progressive promoters of Barack Obama's ambitions did they favor maintaining the occupation of Iraq or expanding the war in Afghanistan or tossing missiles at Iran, the invariable answer was no. When it was pointed out that these positions were those of their candidate, the reply was always the same: some variation of, he's just saying that to get elected.
Do you support the death penalty? No. Your candidate does. He's just saying that to get elected. Do you think the wording of the second amendment invites everyone to pack a gun? No. Your candidate does. He's just saying that to get elected. Do you believe that affordable, universal health care -- single payer, Medicare For All, whatever you want to call it -- should be "off the table?" No. Your candidate does. Nah. He's just saying that to get elected.
The Obama campaign was remarkably light on specifics; instead empty slogans about "hope" and "change" offered thin soup to a populace that was starving for real change after enduring four decades of national decline. But Obama needed to keep things vague if he had a prayer of getting elected. Or so said progressive converts to the Church of Hope.
Having made an act of faith in Obama, the Left demanded nothing of Him in return, no firm plans to demilitarize, no programs advancing social and economic justice, no specifics about affordable universal health care, no loaves, no fishes. Missing was even a shred of the agnosticism that in 1964 prevented the New Left from going more than "Part of the Way with LBJ." In 2008, disorganized, demoralized, powerless, progressives fell on their knees before what they hoped was the messiah, really only a political televangelist with a promise we would all ride to Washington in a gold Cadillac if we'd just send him our money and take communion on election day.
Though some on the left are still ready to drink the KoolAid, a growing number of liberals have come to understand that the Obama administration is not the Second Coming of the New Deal. Shock and disappointment over Obama's performance as president has begun to give way to a realization that Obama is no more nor less than a professional politician, a breed that will dance to the playlist of whoever hires the dj. It's our job to turn the hoses on Obama just as we would on any errant politician (imagine the hoo-ha if it were President McCain destroying Afghanistan or giving away the store to Wall Street). "People," Ian Welsh wrote heatedly the other day (so heatedly, I felt obliged to clean up a few typos),
Yes, the left must stand against Obama and "primary him" (there's a coinage for you). Someone with stature and credibility will have to make a career sacrifice in the primaries if the president is to be forced into issuing firm promises in exchange for votes (Howard Dean probably won't do it, though he has to be outraged by the administration's conservatism; Russ Feingold's idealism seems highly selective; but Dennis Kucinich might be willing to take on the apostate's role, especially if he is redistricted out of his seat in Congress -- it's not as though there'll be a job waiting for him in this administration's apolitical and corporatist cabinet).
But a primary challenge, though politically vital, is a loser (think Ted Kennedy vs Jimmy Carter). The really difficult and really crucial challenge will come in the general election. The progressive majority in this country has to stop looking to the Democratic Party to get the country back on the track -- stretching from the Bill of Rights to the Great Society -- to expanding freedom, equality and economic justice. This is not your grandfather's Democratic Party, or your father's; it is fatally compromised, in the thrall of a moneyed class that cares only to increase its dominion. To succeed, a progressive party would require sacrifice, dedication and long-term thinking. It might not win tomorrow (think John Fremont, although he did come in second*), but it is not hard to imagine that in crisis, and we are in crisis, it could transform our political landscape (think Abraham Lincoln). Even in the short run, as is demonstrated by the history of political organizations as diverse as the Socialist Party and New York's Liberals, the existence of a progressive alternative to business-as-usual would have a positive effect on our politics. Barring a third party run by moneybags Michael Bloomberg, a candidate fronting a new progressive party would be a loser, too; but in the longer term, if our politics don't get more ideological (as distinct from partisan), our slow decline as a nation will not be reversed.
* And picture this: During the 1856 presidential campaign, Republican Fremont refused to answer charges that he was a Roman Catholic -- he wasn't -- because he did not wish to advance the cause of prejudice.
See, also:
Where Do Obama and Progressives Go From Here: Year-End Report by Mike Lux (Open Left 2010-12-22)
Barack Obama is NOT your boyfriend. Ergo, he didn't dump you. by Paul Rosenberg (Open Left 2010-12-06)
The Great Success of Partisan “Overreach” by Jon Walker (Fire Dog Lake 2010-12-24)
Real Family Values: Nine Progressive Policies to Support Our Families by Sarah van Gelder (YES! Magazine 2010-11-25)
Action, Hope, 2011 by Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nation 2010-12-23)
During the late presidential campaign, if you asked progressive promoters of Barack Obama's ambitions did they favor maintaining the occupation of Iraq or expanding the war in Afghanistan or tossing missiles at Iran, the invariable answer was no. When it was pointed out that these positions were those of their candidate, the reply was always the same: some variation of, he's just saying that to get elected.
Do you support the death penalty? No. Your candidate does. He's just saying that to get elected. Do you think the wording of the second amendment invites everyone to pack a gun? No. Your candidate does. He's just saying that to get elected. Do you believe that affordable, universal health care -- single payer, Medicare For All, whatever you want to call it -- should be "off the table?" No. Your candidate does. Nah. He's just saying that to get elected.
The Obama campaign was remarkably light on specifics; instead empty slogans about "hope" and "change" offered thin soup to a populace that was starving for real change after enduring four decades of national decline. But Obama needed to keep things vague if he had a prayer of getting elected. Or so said progressive converts to the Church of Hope.
Having made an act of faith in Obama, the Left demanded nothing of Him in return, no firm plans to demilitarize, no programs advancing social and economic justice, no specifics about affordable universal health care, no loaves, no fishes. Missing was even a shred of the agnosticism that in 1964 prevented the New Left from going more than "Part of the Way with LBJ." In 2008, disorganized, demoralized, powerless, progressives fell on their knees before what they hoped was the messiah, really only a political televangelist with a promise we would all ride to Washington in a gold Cadillac if we'd just send him our money and take communion on election day.
Though some on the left are still ready to drink the KoolAid, a growing number of liberals have come to understand that the Obama administration is not the Second Coming of the New Deal. Shock and disappointment over Obama's performance as president has begun to give way to a realization that Obama is no more nor less than a professional politician, a breed that will dance to the playlist of whoever hires the dj. It's our job to turn the hoses on Obama just as we would on any errant politician (imagine the hoo-ha if it were President McCain destroying Afghanistan or giving away the store to Wall Street). "People," Ian Welsh wrote heatedly the other day (so heatedly, I felt obliged to clean up a few typos),
Obama is not and never has been a left winger. Nor is he a Nixonian or Eisenhower Republican; that would put him massively to the left of where he is and to the left of the majority of the Democratic party. Instead he is a Reaganite, something he told people repeatedly.It hardly matters, though, whether Obama is a good man or not. In politics, results are the bottom line; actions matter more than professed intentions. The president can get away with pursuing policies that are good for the oligarchs and bad for the majority, that hurt average Americans, that jeopardize the future of the country, because there are no effective counterweights to the power of the militarists and the corporations. The end of Don't Ask Don't Tell showed that organized action still can be effective, especially if the monetary stakes aren't high, but taking on the security state and the corporations is going to require a revolutionary change in our politics. Where possible, this will involve taking control of state and local Democratic Party structures. It will require adding muscle to existing organizations, like unions and progressive research and action groups, and building new ones, including a progressive political party unbeholden to corporate power. Coalition-building on a grand scale will be needed to maximize the strength of a very fragmented opposition. Small-scale, local political reforms -- publicly financed campaigns, instant runoffs, weekend voting, proportional representation -- will be essential to making political institutions more responsive.
Until folks get it through their skulls that Obama is not and never was a liberal, a progressive or left wing in any way, shape or form they are going to continue misdiagnosing the problem. That isn’t to say Obama may or may not be a wimp, but he always compromises right, never left, and his compromises are minor. He always wanted tax cuts. He gave away the public option in private negotiations near the beginning of the HCR fight, not the end. He never even proposed an adequate stimulus bill. He bent arms, hard, to get TARP through.
He’s a Reaganite. It’s what he believes in, genuinely. Moreover, he despises left wingers, likes kicking gays and women whenever he gets a chance, and believes deeply and truly in the security state (you did notice that Obama administration told everyone to take their objections to backscatter scanners and groping and shove them where the sun don’t shine, then told you they’re thinking of extending TSA police state activities to other public transit?).
Let me put it even more baldly. Obama is, actually, a bad man. He didn’t do the right thing when he had a majority, and now that he has the excuse of a Republican House, he’s going to let them do bad thing after bad thing. This isn’t about “compromise," this is about doing what he wants to do anyway, like slashing social security. The Senate, you remember, voted down the catfood commission. Obama reinstituted it by executive fiat.
If the left doesn’t stand against Obama and doesn’t primary him, it stands for nothing and for nobody (Obama isn’t about compromise by Ian Welsh 2010-12-03).
Yes, the left must stand against Obama and "primary him" (there's a coinage for you). Someone with stature and credibility will have to make a career sacrifice in the primaries if the president is to be forced into issuing firm promises in exchange for votes (Howard Dean probably won't do it, though he has to be outraged by the administration's conservatism; Russ Feingold's idealism seems highly selective; but Dennis Kucinich might be willing to take on the apostate's role, especially if he is redistricted out of his seat in Congress -- it's not as though there'll be a job waiting for him in this administration's apolitical and corporatist cabinet).
But a primary challenge, though politically vital, is a loser (think Ted Kennedy vs Jimmy Carter). The really difficult and really crucial challenge will come in the general election. The progressive majority in this country has to stop looking to the Democratic Party to get the country back on the track -- stretching from the Bill of Rights to the Great Society -- to expanding freedom, equality and economic justice. This is not your grandfather's Democratic Party, or your father's; it is fatally compromised, in the thrall of a moneyed class that cares only to increase its dominion. To succeed, a progressive party would require sacrifice, dedication and long-term thinking. It might not win tomorrow (think John Fremont, although he did come in second*), but it is not hard to imagine that in crisis, and we are in crisis, it could transform our political landscape (think Abraham Lincoln). Even in the short run, as is demonstrated by the history of political organizations as diverse as the Socialist Party and New York's Liberals, the existence of a progressive alternative to business-as-usual would have a positive effect on our politics. Barring a third party run by moneybags Michael Bloomberg, a candidate fronting a new progressive party would be a loser, too; but in the longer term, if our politics don't get more ideological (as distinct from partisan), our slow decline as a nation will not be reversed.
* And picture this: During the 1856 presidential campaign, Republican Fremont refused to answer charges that he was a Roman Catholic -- he wasn't -- because he did not wish to advance the cause of prejudice.
See, also:
Where Do Obama and Progressives Go From Here: Year-End Report by Mike Lux (Open Left 2010-12-22)
Barack Obama is NOT your boyfriend. Ergo, he didn't dump you. by Paul Rosenberg (Open Left 2010-12-06)
The Great Success of Partisan “Overreach” by Jon Walker (Fire Dog Lake 2010-12-24)
Real Family Values: Nine Progressive Policies to Support Our Families by Sarah van Gelder (YES! Magazine 2010-11-25)
Action, Hope, 2011 by Katrina vanden Heuvel (The Nation 2010-12-23)
Immigration Reform: You pick potaytoes & I pick potahtoes
Saturday Catchup: Sauce for your weekend
"But if 'global war' isn’t the right approach to terror what is? Experts on terrorism have produced shelves’ worth of new works on this question. For outsiders, reading this material can be a jarring experience. In the world of terrorism studies, the rhetoric of righteousness gives way to equilibrium equations. Nobody is good and nobody is evil. Terrorists, even suicide bombers, are not psychotics or fanatics; they’re rational actors — that is, what they do is explicable in terms of their beliefs and desires — who respond to the set of incentives that they find before them. The tools of analysis are realism, rational choice, game theory, decision theory: clinical and bloodless modes of thinking. That approach, along with these scholars’ long immersion in the subject, can produce some surprising observations." -- Terrorism Studies: Social scientists do counterinsurgency by Nicholas Lemann (The New Yorker 2010-04-26)
"I have been openly critical of the US military's role in world affairs for several years now, and in the responses from soldiers and their supporters I have noticed a common theme: I should be respectful, I am told, because the military is defending my 'freedom.' This is not an overly brusque summarization - I have not heard an elaboration on this claim. Everyone should be grateful for the sacrifices of the US military, from the Iraqis and Afghans to US citizens, because without the exact current formulation of the US military, a nebulous and shadowy enemy will step forth to threaten my personal freedom or safety. So the story goes. Because you military men and women believe you are doing this for me, I am formally asking you to stop." -- A Plea to the US Military and Its Enforcers by Ian G. Anderson (truthout 2010-04-30).
One benefit of working at Google was the once or twice a week visits to the office by writers promoting their latest books. Here, for example, is Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz explaining how economic policy became dysfunctional in what might be described as the Robert Rubin Years.
Reading list:
Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy by Joseph E. Stiglitz
Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz
The Stiglitz Report: Reforming the International Monetary and Financial Systems in the Wake of the Global Crisis by Joseph E. Stiglitz
"It is a shame that Congress is moving forward with financial regulations that do not eliminate the heads-bankers-win, tails-taxpayers-lose mentality that has driven most of the bailouts during this sorry episode. Companies that are too mighty to fail must be broken up. And incentives in the nation's regulatory system that reward size with subsidies should not be enshrined into law. They should be eliminated. Only then will America be safe from toxic banking practices and the burdensome rescues they require." -- Do You Have Any Reforms in Size XL? by Gretchen Morgenson (New York Times 2010-04-23).
"Democrats know exactly how politically dangerous it is to raise funds on Wall Street right now. But they're doing it anyway. Both parties, in fact, know the risks and are choosing to take the hit rather than forgo the cash. This isn't because they love being attacked or even think that the toxicity of Wall Street is overstated. It's because, to use a metaphor that's in vogue right now, our system of campaign finance turns politicians into vampire squids wrapped around the wallets of the rich, relentlessly jamming their blood funnels into anything that smells like money." -- Democrats, Republicans just can't quit Wall Street money by Ezra Klein (Washington Post blog 201-04-30).
Thomas Jefferson on Lloyd Blankfein: "I have ever believed that had there been no Queen, there would have been no [French] revolution. ... Her inordinate gambling and dissipations ... her inflexible perverseness, and dauntless spirit, led herself to the guillotine ... and plunged the world into crimes and calamities which will forever stain the pages of modern history." -- Goldman Sachs: The Marie Antoinette of Our Time! by Leslie Griffith (Reader Supported News 2010-04-30). Interesting take. The French didn't sit still for it. Will we?
Music break: Mississisppi John Hurt's Pay Day performed by Joe Bad XAnd here's the original.
“What we’re seeing affecting the press is part of a general trend in freedom around the world. It’s often press freedom that is the first to come under attack, and then that spreads to other freedoms more generally.” -- Karin Deutsch Karleker, managing editor, Freedom House global press freedom study. Press freedom falls around the world by Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor 2010-04-29). There are bright spots regarding press freedom, but there's been an overall decline for eight straight years, according to a new report. Other political and social freedoms may be waning, too.
They told us the World Wide Web would usher in a new era of freedom, political activism, and perpetual peace. They were wrong. Think Again: The Internet by Evgeny Morozov (Foreign Policy 2010-May/June). Alas, a networked world is not inherently a more just world. It's still going to take politics.
"What conclusion are we to draw from the fact that the richest and most powerful nation and most technologically advanced capitalist country cannot come up with the resources necessary to fund its educational system? This is not a technical problem, or even a financial one. It's political." -- The Looming Educational Catastrophe is Scary. Indeed. by Carl Bloice (BlackCommentator.com 2010-04-29)
SNCC "built two independent political parties and organized labor unions and agricultural co-operatives. It gave the movement for women's liberation new energy. It inspired and trained the activists who began the 'New Left.' It helped expand the limits of political debate within black America, and broadened the focus of the civil rights movement. Unlike mainstream civil rights groups, which merely sought integration of Blacks into the existing order, SNCC sought structural changes in American society itself." -- Julian Bond at the 50th birthday party of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. We'll Never Turn Back - SNCC 50th Anniversary Celebrates Vanguard Role In Battles for Democracy by Carl Davidson (Portside.org 2010-04-26).
"Now we have come to another parting of the ways, and once again the fate and character of our country are up for grabs": On the final edition of his PBS "Journal," Bill Moyers holds long conversations with Texas populist Jim Hightower and novelist-essayist Barry Lopez. Here is the transcript.
If you're the person who has not yet seen what has to be the weirdest SNL video ever, this is for you:
Speaking of weird, "newspapers are full of the latest priestly sex abuses. This is an on going story. Within the last year, mass scandals have erupted in Brazil, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria. and the United States. Figures from the John Jay School of Criminal Justice estimate that since 1950, an estimated 280,000 children have been sexually abused by Catholic Clergy and deacons. How has this happened? Why does it continue? Pedophilia certainly is a familiar problem for the Catholic Church. Father Thomas Doyle, a priest, and Richard Sipes and Patrick Wall, former monks, wrote that the Catholic Church has recognized the problem of abuse by priests for 2,000 years. Their acclaimed book, Sex, Priests and Secret Codes was based on the Church’s own documents." -- Priests & Pedophilia: What Authoritarian Religion, Families & Schools Have Wrought by Harriet Fraad (AlterNet/Tikkun Daily 2010-04-30).
And, finally, plug in your earphones, 'cause here's a video of the greatest local rock band from my college years:
Although it can't match the energy of their live performances, The Remains by Barry & The Remains belongs in every basic rock 'n' roll collection as a remarkable milestone from a lost era. Or is that a lost milestone from a remarkable era? Whatever. The mid-sixties were a great time for rock and roll. And as I said at the time, there was lot more going on than the British invasion.
"I have been openly critical of the US military's role in world affairs for several years now, and in the responses from soldiers and their supporters I have noticed a common theme: I should be respectful, I am told, because the military is defending my 'freedom.' This is not an overly brusque summarization - I have not heard an elaboration on this claim. Everyone should be grateful for the sacrifices of the US military, from the Iraqis and Afghans to US citizens, because without the exact current formulation of the US military, a nebulous and shadowy enemy will step forth to threaten my personal freedom or safety. So the story goes. Because you military men and women believe you are doing this for me, I am formally asking you to stop." -- A Plea to the US Military and Its Enforcers by Ian G. Anderson (truthout 2010-04-30).
One benefit of working at Google was the once or twice a week visits to the office by writers promoting their latest books. Here, for example, is Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz explaining how economic policy became dysfunctional in what might be described as the Robert Rubin Years.
Reading list:
Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy by Joseph E. Stiglitz
Globalization and Its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz
The Stiglitz Report: Reforming the International Monetary and Financial Systems in the Wake of the Global Crisis by Joseph E. Stiglitz
"It is a shame that Congress is moving forward with financial regulations that do not eliminate the heads-bankers-win, tails-taxpayers-lose mentality that has driven most of the bailouts during this sorry episode. Companies that are too mighty to fail must be broken up. And incentives in the nation's regulatory system that reward size with subsidies should not be enshrined into law. They should be eliminated. Only then will America be safe from toxic banking practices and the burdensome rescues they require." -- Do You Have Any Reforms in Size XL? by Gretchen Morgenson (New York Times 2010-04-23).
"Democrats know exactly how politically dangerous it is to raise funds on Wall Street right now. But they're doing it anyway. Both parties, in fact, know the risks and are choosing to take the hit rather than forgo the cash. This isn't because they love being attacked or even think that the toxicity of Wall Street is overstated. It's because, to use a metaphor that's in vogue right now, our system of campaign finance turns politicians into vampire squids wrapped around the wallets of the rich, relentlessly jamming their blood funnels into anything that smells like money." -- Democrats, Republicans just can't quit Wall Street money by Ezra Klein (Washington Post blog 201-04-30).
Thomas Jefferson on Lloyd Blankfein: "I have ever believed that had there been no Queen, there would have been no [French] revolution. ... Her inordinate gambling and dissipations ... her inflexible perverseness, and dauntless spirit, led herself to the guillotine ... and plunged the world into crimes and calamities which will forever stain the pages of modern history." -- Goldman Sachs: The Marie Antoinette of Our Time! by Leslie Griffith (Reader Supported News 2010-04-30). Interesting take. The French didn't sit still for it. Will we?
Music break: Mississisppi John Hurt's Pay Day performed by Joe Bad XAnd here's the original.
“What we’re seeing affecting the press is part of a general trend in freedom around the world. It’s often press freedom that is the first to come under attack, and then that spreads to other freedoms more generally.” -- Karin Deutsch Karleker, managing editor, Freedom House global press freedom study. Press freedom falls around the world by Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor 2010-04-29). There are bright spots regarding press freedom, but there's been an overall decline for eight straight years, according to a new report. Other political and social freedoms may be waning, too.
They told us the World Wide Web would usher in a new era of freedom, political activism, and perpetual peace. They were wrong. Think Again: The Internet by Evgeny Morozov (Foreign Policy 2010-May/June). Alas, a networked world is not inherently a more just world. It's still going to take politics.
"What conclusion are we to draw from the fact that the richest and most powerful nation and most technologically advanced capitalist country cannot come up with the resources necessary to fund its educational system? This is not a technical problem, or even a financial one. It's political." -- The Looming Educational Catastrophe is Scary. Indeed. by Carl Bloice (BlackCommentator.com 2010-04-29)
SNCC "built two independent political parties and organized labor unions and agricultural co-operatives. It gave the movement for women's liberation new energy. It inspired and trained the activists who began the 'New Left.' It helped expand the limits of political debate within black America, and broadened the focus of the civil rights movement. Unlike mainstream civil rights groups, which merely sought integration of Blacks into the existing order, SNCC sought structural changes in American society itself." -- Julian Bond at the 50th birthday party of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. We'll Never Turn Back - SNCC 50th Anniversary Celebrates Vanguard Role In Battles for Democracy by Carl Davidson (Portside.org 2010-04-26).
"Now we have come to another parting of the ways, and once again the fate and character of our country are up for grabs": On the final edition of his PBS "Journal," Bill Moyers holds long conversations with Texas populist Jim Hightower and novelist-essayist Barry Lopez. Here is the transcript.
If you're the person who has not yet seen what has to be the weirdest SNL video ever, this is for you:
Speaking of weird, "newspapers are full of the latest priestly sex abuses. This is an on going story. Within the last year, mass scandals have erupted in Brazil, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria. and the United States. Figures from the John Jay School of Criminal Justice estimate that since 1950, an estimated 280,000 children have been sexually abused by Catholic Clergy and deacons. How has this happened? Why does it continue? Pedophilia certainly is a familiar problem for the Catholic Church. Father Thomas Doyle, a priest, and Richard Sipes and Patrick Wall, former monks, wrote that the Catholic Church has recognized the problem of abuse by priests for 2,000 years. Their acclaimed book, Sex, Priests and Secret Codes was based on the Church’s own documents." -- Priests & Pedophilia: What Authoritarian Religion, Families & Schools Have Wrought by Harriet Fraad (AlterNet/Tikkun Daily 2010-04-30).
And, finally, plug in your earphones, 'cause here's a video of the greatest local rock band from my college years:
Although it can't match the energy of their live performances, The Remains by Barry & The Remains belongs in every basic rock 'n' roll collection as a remarkable milestone from a lost era. Or is that a lost milestone from a remarkable era? Whatever. The mid-sixties were a great time for rock and roll. And as I said at the time, there was lot more going on than the British invasion.
Democracy: Campaign Finance Reform - Now!
On Thursday, HR 1826, the House Fair Elections Now Act, introduced by Democratic caucus chairman Rep. John B. Larson (D-CT), gained its 134th co-sponsor; more than half of the Democrats in the House now support the bill.
With the cost of elections soaring to all-time highs, PACs proliferating, and the likes of Michael Bloomberg essentially purchasing their offices, even before the Supremes ruling eliminating restrictions on election spending by corporations it appeared that the time for campaign financing reform had finally arrived.
Among other reforms such as limits on donations, the bill replaces the complicated current federal election financing system with genuine campaign finance reform. The measure has the backing of organizations across the political spectrum, from the NAACP and the SEIU to religious leaders, the League of Young Voters, and managers of major corporations from Ben & Jerry’s and Crate & Barrel to Delta Airlines and Hasbro. Similar pressure is being applied to the Senate in support of its version, S 752.
Another take: Public financing key to future campaigns (The Olympian 2010-01-28)
Actions: Tell Congress to pass campaign finance reform now.
Contribute to Fair Elections Now (groups backing the umbrella organization in support of campaign finance reform, the Fair Elections Now Coalition, include Brennan Center for Justice, Change Congress, Common Cause, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG).
Contact an organizer in your state.
Also, see:
Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision
and (Think Progress 2010-01-28)
With the cost of elections soaring to all-time highs, PACs proliferating, and the likes of Michael Bloomberg essentially purchasing their offices, even before the Supremes ruling eliminating restrictions on election spending by corporations it appeared that the time for campaign financing reform had finally arrived.
Among other reforms such as limits on donations, the bill replaces the complicated current federal election financing system with genuine campaign finance reform. The measure has the backing of organizations across the political spectrum, from the NAACP and the SEIU to religious leaders, the League of Young Voters, and managers of major corporations from Ben & Jerry’s and Crate & Barrel to Delta Airlines and Hasbro. Similar pressure is being applied to the Senate in support of its version, S 752.
Another take: Public financing key to future campaigns (The Olympian 2010-01-28)
Actions: Tell Congress to pass campaign finance reform now.
Contribute to Fair Elections Now (groups backing the umbrella organization in support of campaign finance reform, the Fair Elections Now Coalition, include Brennan Center for Justice, Change Congress, Common Cause, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG).
Contact an organizer in your state.
Also, see:
Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision
and (Think Progress 2010-01-28)
Con Law: Free speech is a human right
There are many proposals to extend the reach of democracy by revising the Constitution, from excising the electoral college to remodeling the Senate, but no proposal to amend the document has gained more traction than the effort to add a clause declaring that corporations should not be considered "persons" and cannot claim the same rights under the law as human beings. Since the Supremes based their recent ruling that corporate spending to influence elections is a free speech right flowing from the legal fiction that corporations are persons, the proposed amendment would undermine the foundation of the court's decision. A coalition of public interest organizations has launched a campaign to overturn the ruling. The groups -- Voter Action, Public Citizen, Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance -- say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. Their aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, is to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades.
For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, visit Free Speech for People.
Listen to a press call on the Supreme Court decision.
View the Supreme Court ruling.
See, also: Politics: Representative Democracy and the Power of Corporations (Impractical Proposals 2010-01-24)
Actions:
Sign Campaign to Legalize Democracy's Move to Amend petition.
Spread the word by urging others to visit www.freespeechforpeople.org for information on the constitutional reform campaign.
For more information on the constitutional amendment campaign, visit Free Speech for People.
Listen to a press call on the Supreme Court decision.
View the Supreme Court ruling.
See, also: Politics: Representative Democracy and the Power of Corporations (Impractical Proposals 2010-01-24)
Actions:
Sign Campaign to Legalize Democracy's Move to Amend petition.
Spread the word by urging others to visit www.freespeechforpeople.org for information on the constitutional reform campaign.
Politics: Representative Democracy and the Power of Corporations
In a video announcing the launch of FreeSpeechForPeople.org, a new group that plans to organize against the U.S. Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision on January 21, 2010 to remove limitations on corporations' election spending, Jamie Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University, Rep. Donna Edwards, and others discuss the meaning of the case for our democracy.
Here's Prof. Raskin on Democracy Now! and C-Span.
Among the many problems with the decision is the fact that the majority over-reached, deciding to throw out campaign financing laws merely because such restrictions offend the conservatives' ideological sensibilities. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent, "The only relevant thing that has changed since [previous decisions limiting corporate speech] is the composition of this Court. Today’s ruling thus strikes at the vitals of stare decisis, the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion" that "permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals." This is judicial activism at its most transparent and most virulent, and gives the lie to the fiction that it is the right wing justices who respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
Our democracy, already at risk because of the wealth and power of corporations, is further undermined by the court's action. Justice Stevens: "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
Action was needed before this decision to make our society more democratic. We have pushed for many of them, from changes in electoral procedures to campaign finance reform. David Swanson outlines many of the needed actions on AfterDowningStreet, "including public financing of elections, free media for elections, shareholder control of corporations, public control of corporations, a variety of constitutional amendments including one to undo corporate personhood entirely, and an array of legislative steps, including Congressman Alan Grayson's bills to tax corporate political spending, to require public reporting of corporate spending on influencing public opinion, and to apply antitrust laws and other regulations to political committees. But ultimately we're going to have to build a popular movement around an amendment to the Constitution that we can force through Congress and the states."
In the long run, the action of the five ideologically driven members of the Supreme Court may provide the spark that ignites genuine reform. If it catches fire, a movement to democratize this nation will be hard to extinguish. FreeSpeechForPeople.org is organizing to do this. Partners include Voter Action, Public Citizen, The Center for Corporate Policy and the American Independent Business Alliance.
Action: Join FreeSpeechForPeople.org and sign the resolution to amend the Constitution to guarantee the first amendment rights of people.
See, also: Citizen Goldman-Sachs, Psychopath by Matt Osborne (Huffington Post 2010-01-24)
Here's Prof. Raskin on Democracy Now! and C-Span.
Among the many problems with the decision is the fact that the majority over-reached, deciding to throw out campaign financing laws merely because such restrictions offend the conservatives' ideological sensibilities. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent, "The only relevant thing that has changed since [previous decisions limiting corporate speech] is the composition of this Court. Today’s ruling thus strikes at the vitals of stare decisis, the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion" that "permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals." This is judicial activism at its most transparent and most virulent, and gives the lie to the fiction that it is the right wing justices who respect the Constitution and the rule of law.
Our democracy, already at risk because of the wealth and power of corporations, is further undermined by the court's action. Justice Stevens: "Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
Action was needed before this decision to make our society more democratic. We have pushed for many of them, from changes in electoral procedures to campaign finance reform. David Swanson outlines many of the needed actions on AfterDowningStreet, "including public financing of elections, free media for elections, shareholder control of corporations, public control of corporations, a variety of constitutional amendments including one to undo corporate personhood entirely, and an array of legislative steps, including Congressman Alan Grayson's bills to tax corporate political spending, to require public reporting of corporate spending on influencing public opinion, and to apply antitrust laws and other regulations to political committees. But ultimately we're going to have to build a popular movement around an amendment to the Constitution that we can force through Congress and the states."
In the long run, the action of the five ideologically driven members of the Supreme Court may provide the spark that ignites genuine reform. If it catches fire, a movement to democratize this nation will be hard to extinguish. FreeSpeechForPeople.org is organizing to do this. Partners include Voter Action, Public Citizen, The Center for Corporate Policy and the American Independent Business Alliance.
Action: Join FreeSpeechForPeople.org and sign the resolution to amend the Constitution to guarantee the first amendment rights of people.
See, also: Citizen Goldman-Sachs, Psychopath by Matt Osborne (Huffington Post 2010-01-24)
Politics: It's about policy, not personality
Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate came into office a year ago in the middle of an economic -- and political -- crisis at least as profound as anything we have faced as a nation since the 1930s. Our infrastructure is in tatters; our educational system is starved for resources; poverty is growing; joblessness is unconscionably high; we are in the grip of a military-industrial oligarchy that is squandering what is left of our wealth; the federal deficit is huge and growing and we are indebted to foreign powers, some of which do not necessarily wish us well; we are embroiled in two wars and several smaller actions; democracy is crippled by political compromises made more than two centuries ago and unaddressed since; we are the only industrialized nation without some form of affordable, universal health care; economic justice is further from our reach than it was 50 years ago...
Obama ran to the right of his party; though he promised "change," there was no reasonable expectation from the specific proposals he made during the campaign that he would address any of these problems. Still, a populace desperate for a new beginning placed their hopes in his hands. Franklin Roosevelt, too, ran as a conservative, but once in office he enthusiastically embraced any proposal that looked like it might improve the lives of average people. If the voters thought they were electing a Roosevelt last year, they were kidding themselves; but it wasn't unreasonable to hope an Obama administration might catch at least a little of the New Deal spirit.
Yesterday, in true blue Massachusetts, the voters rendered their verdict on the Democrats' first year. Yes, there were other factors, including Martha Coakley's limits as a campaigner -- the outcome was probably determined the evening the AG won the primary -- and Scott Brown's personal appeal, but it's clear that dissatisfaction with the performance of the national Democrats compelled Brown's win. As SEIU president Andy Stern put it, "Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure."
Despite evidence to the contrary, Lawrence Lessig sees an opportunity to end paralysis of our political system, namely by adopting citizen-funded elections to break control of monied interests. Here's what he had to say:
Action: Join Change Congress
Obama ran to the right of his party; though he promised "change," there was no reasonable expectation from the specific proposals he made during the campaign that he would address any of these problems. Still, a populace desperate for a new beginning placed their hopes in his hands. Franklin Roosevelt, too, ran as a conservative, but once in office he enthusiastically embraced any proposal that looked like it might improve the lives of average people. If the voters thought they were electing a Roosevelt last year, they were kidding themselves; but it wasn't unreasonable to hope an Obama administration might catch at least a little of the New Deal spirit.
Yesterday, in true blue Massachusetts, the voters rendered their verdict on the Democrats' first year. Yes, there were other factors, including Martha Coakley's limits as a campaigner -- the outcome was probably determined the evening the AG won the primary -- and Scott Brown's personal appeal, but it's clear that dissatisfaction with the performance of the national Democrats compelled Brown's win. As SEIU president Andy Stern put it, "Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure."
Despite evidence to the contrary, Lawrence Lessig sees an opportunity to end paralysis of our political system, namely by adopting citizen-funded elections to break control of monied interests. Here's what he had to say:
Today is the one-year anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, and it comes at a remarkable moment in his presidency.
Yesterday, the voters in my home state of Massachusetts elected a Republican to serve in the seat once held by Senator Ted Kennedy -- a stunning reminder that for millions of people, the last election wasn't just about one man, but about a deep-seated desire for change.
One year ago today was a moment when many things felt possible, whether or not you supported Obama and his agenda -- when it seemed as if a broken political system might finally have gasped its last breath.
One year later -- with the fate of its signature legislative priority in jeopardy and voters even in a deep blue state saying they still aren't satisfied with the ways of Washington -- it's clear that this administration is an opportunity missed. But it's not, I believe, because Obama is too liberal, nor because he's not liberal enough. Not because this administration has been too defensive, too aggressive, too slow or too quick to act. It's because we have a system in Washington that simply does not -- will not -- allow the kind of change we urgently need.
After one year, we've now seen conclusively that even a transformative figure in the Oval Office can't transform the way Washington works, or dispel the skepticism the voters feel toward their government.
I've filmed a new installment of the Change Congress Chronicles explaining why progressives and conservatives alike should be outraged by what we've seen this past year. Please watch it today:
http://action.change-congress.org/YearOne
As you know, today is also the day we might get a landmark decision from the Supreme Court that could poison the system even further, giving corporations unlimited license to use their money to affect elections in this country. It's a big day.
Action: Join Change Congress
Democracy: 23 Proposals to Revitalize the US Constitution
I find myself unpersuaded by many of Larry Sabato's 23 Proposals to Revitalize the US Constitution. Drawn from his book, A More Perfect Constitution, where they are well-argued, they are certainly worthy of consideration. To my mind, though, he gives too little emphasis to rebuilding accountable institutions (labor unions, political parties, community groups), and it strikes me that some of the ideas he embraces where adopted have turned out to have unintended consequences: term limts, for example, meant to encourage frequent rotation of office (the political value of that goal escapes me, but never mind) has in practice tended to increase the power of bureaucracies and lobbies, not an outcome Sabato desires, I think. I have no disagreement, however, with his basic premise that our political system is seriously in need of reform. Here's the list:
Congress:
In making his case, Sabato, who is founder of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, is a good deal more subtle, cogent and persuasive than he comes across in outline. The reforms he suggests reflect the values he believes are already present in the Constitution: pragmatism, flexibility, fairness, the quest for equality and for justice. Whether his particular suggestions are the best ones to achieve a more perfect constitution, they are commendably thoughtful and well articulated.
Maybe, eventually, a constitutional convention will be needed to get the American experiment back on course. In the meantime, there are more limited actions -- serious campaign finance reform, an amendment to retire the electoral college, weekend voting, instant run-offs, proportional representation -- that will tend to make the system more responsive and accountable. The struggle for reform has just begun. The debate will continue. The road to go is long. A More Perfect Constitution makes a good start.
Source: "23 Proposals to Revitalize the US Constitution," from A More Perfect Constitution: Ideas to Inspire a New Generation by Larry J. Sabato.
Congress:
1. Expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative: Grant the 10 most populous states 2 additional Senators, the 15 next most populous states 1 additional Senator, and the District of Columbia 1 Senator. [See, Democracy: How do we achieve One Person One Vote? (Impractical Proposals 2009-10-09)]Presidency:
2. Appoint all former Presidents and Vice Presidents to the new office of “National Senator.”
3. Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition.
4. Lengthen House terms to 3 years (from 2) and set Senate terms to coincide with all Presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.
5. Expand the size of the House to approximately 1,000 members (from current 435), so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.
6. Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders’ principle of frequent rotation in office.
7. Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.
8. Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for replacement Senators and Congresspeople in the event of deaths or extensive incapacitation.
9. Establish a new 6-year, 1-time Presidential term with the option for the President to seek 2 additional years in an up/down referendum of the American people.Supreme Court:
10. Limit some Presidential war-making powers and expand Congress’s oversight of war-making.
11. Give the President a line-item veto.
12. Allow men and women not born in the U.S. to run for President or Vice President after having been a citizen for 20 years.
13. Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.Politics:
14. Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.
15. Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.
16. Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.
17. Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.Universal National Service:
18. Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over 4 months, for Presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.
19. Mend the Electoral College by granting more populated states additional electors, to preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a President will win without a majority of the popular vote.
20. Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns, and by mandating partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns.
21. Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.
22. Create a Constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least 2 years of their lives in service to the country.National Constitutional Convention:
23. Convene a new Constitutional Convention using the state-based mechanism left to us by the Framers in the current Constitution.Although intended to advance democracy, some of these proposals strike me as anti-democratic. Why should former leaders who have lost the confidence of the citizenry, a Jimmy Carter, say, or a George W. Bush, be restored to a degree of power by lifetime appointment to the Senate? (And vice presidents? Makes you wonder for a minute if Sabato is kidding.) Unless you adopt other "reforms" -- regional qualifications? race and gender quotas? -- it's difficult to see why additional justices would make the Supreme Court any more representative. Term limits actually limit the power of voters to decide who will represent them. A balanced budget amendment would restrict the ability of future generations to deal flexibly with crises like the current financial meltdown (and why not deficit-finance infrastructure projects, if it is intended that future generations will reap the benefits?). The line-item veto is a direct attack on representative democracy.
In making his case, Sabato, who is founder of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, is a good deal more subtle, cogent and persuasive than he comes across in outline. The reforms he suggests reflect the values he believes are already present in the Constitution: pragmatism, flexibility, fairness, the quest for equality and for justice. Whether his particular suggestions are the best ones to achieve a more perfect constitution, they are commendably thoughtful and well articulated.
Maybe, eventually, a constitutional convention will be needed to get the American experiment back on course. In the meantime, there are more limited actions -- serious campaign finance reform, an amendment to retire the electoral college, weekend voting, instant run-offs, proportional representation -- that will tend to make the system more responsive and accountable. The struggle for reform has just begun. The debate will continue. The road to go is long. A More Perfect Constitution makes a good start.
Source: "23 Proposals to Revitalize the US Constitution," from A More Perfect Constitution: Ideas to Inspire a New Generation by Larry J. Sabato.
Clip File: the next Big Fight in Congress will be over the proposed creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency
"...The House Financial Services Committee hopes to approve the CFPA the week after next. On Wednesday, the committee held a hearing to discuss Chairman Barney Frank's draft proposal. The best case for a CFPA was made by those offering their reasons for opposing it.
"Those arguments ranged from the bizarre: 'If [this] had been in effect a number of years ago we probably wouldn't have ATM machines, frequent flyer miles, and the list goes on,' said Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling. Ranking Member Spencer Bachus of Alabama claimed that the CFPA would lead to 'less consumer protection.'
"To the inane: 'Could you clarify to me the extent of [SEIU's] financial and programmatic ties to ACORN?' Congressman Patrick McHenry of North Carolina demanded of witness Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union. David John, senior research fellow, at the Heritage Foundation, said, 'When you establish a new agency of this type... you're going to find yourself with people who are supposedly regulating but in reality they're far more concerned about finding things like where their desk is, and who their new reporting relationship is, etc., etc.'" -- Do They Take Us for Schmucks? by Greg Kaufmann (The Nation 2009-10-02
"Those arguments ranged from the bizarre: 'If [this] had been in effect a number of years ago we probably wouldn't have ATM machines, frequent flyer miles, and the list goes on,' said Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling. Ranking Member Spencer Bachus of Alabama claimed that the CFPA would lead to 'less consumer protection.'
"To the inane: 'Could you clarify to me the extent of [SEIU's] financial and programmatic ties to ACORN?' Congressman Patrick McHenry of North Carolina demanded of witness Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union. David John, senior research fellow, at the Heritage Foundation, said, 'When you establish a new agency of this type... you're going to find yourself with people who are supposedly regulating but in reality they're far more concerned about finding things like where their desk is, and who their new reporting relationship is, etc., etc.'" -- Do They Take Us for Schmucks? by Greg Kaufmann (The Nation 2009-10-02
OpEd: Blogging About John Edwards
Forgetting for the moment that no one knows what Barack Obama really means when he uses the word, the "change" candidates, John Edwards and Obama, are winning handily over the "experience" (i.e., status quo) candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. The thing is, we do know what Edwards means by change -- out of Iraq by December 2008, universal health care (a wonky version, but I doubt he's wedded to it**), a New Deal-Great Society type assault on poverty and joblessness, an environmental program that takes on big oil and the polluting industries, and a reining in of the excesses of the free market. If you're a little disheartened by Hillary's comeback, DailyKos has some blog comments you may find inspiring:
John Edwards decides 2008 on the DNC floor
Why Edwards Supporters are Sticking to Their Guns
Chris Floyd ties Bush and BCCI to Sibel Edmonds bombshell
Don't jump ship on Edwards
Today makes me support Edwards *more*, not less.
I Voted for John Edwards Yesterday
Obama vs. Edwards, not an equal choice...
** As it turns out, he's not: "Former Senator John Edwards does not discount the possibility that his health care proposal, which would allow Americans to buy new government insurance packages modeled on Medicare, could evolve into a federalized system like those in Canada and many European countries. And if it does, Mr. Edwards said he would be just fine with that." NYTimes, 2008-01-25.
John Edwards decides 2008 on the DNC floor
Why Edwards Supporters are Sticking to Their Guns
Chris Floyd ties Bush and BCCI to Sibel Edmonds bombshell
Don't jump ship on Edwards
Today makes me support Edwards *more*, not less.
I Voted for John Edwards Yesterday
Obama vs. Edwards, not an equal choice...
** As it turns out, he's not: "Former Senator John Edwards does not discount the possibility that his health care proposal, which would allow Americans to buy new government insurance packages modeled on Medicare, could evolve into a federalized system like those in Canada and many European countries. And if it does, Mr. Edwards said he would be just fine with that." NYTimes, 2008-01-25.
2008: Campaign Contributions Database
OpenSecrets.org's Race for the White House: Banking on Becoming President page compiles data on campaign contributions for the 2008 presidential election. Candidate profiles include total funds raised and spent, cash on hand, debts, a breakdown of sources of funds (such as individual contributions), plus week-by-week comparisons, a donor lookup, contributions by industry, and other useful information. "After just three months of fundraising, the candidates for president in 2008 have already raised more than $150 million. No presidential money chase has ever started so quickly. By some predictions, the eventual nominees will need to raise $500 million apiece to compete -- a record sum. To find out where all this money is coming from, explore the options to the left." <http://www.opensecrets.org/>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
