Tonight is the State of the Union Address.
The corporate raider Romney, (I'm agreeing with both D's and R's here.) who pays a lower tax rate on his $21 million per year than most working Americans, will be offering his "prebuttal" to the President's speech under the banner, "Obama is not working".
Maybe Mitt the aristocrat wants us all to think Obama just plays basketball all day, while listening to gangsta rap. He certainly doesn't want us to know the system is rigged in his favor.
Poor Willard! He must be suffering such appalling deprivation. How can he afford to maintain his collection of mansions, condos, and vacation homes?
Lower taxes for the rich is obviously the only compassionate solution.
The poor man doesn't even have room in his car for his dog. He had to ride in a crate up on the roof. Hurricane force winds on a hosed down animal wasn't cruel in any way, right?
I'm sure his prebuttal will resonate with every oppressed aristocrat in America.
Remember last year when the "liberal" corporate media aired both the Republican rebuttal AND the Tea Party rebuttal?
So seeing as how the corporate media is so "liberal" to do that, I suppose we'll be hearing an OWS rebuttal tonight...
Or how about Bernie Sanders' socialist rebuttal?
Ya think?
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Mr. "Family Values"
Do you have a ball and chain for a wife? One so selfish and demanding she won’t ever let you do what you want to do? And how about her mother? Is your mother-in-law such a beast and ogre, you’d love to have a chance to show her what you think of her?
Well, lucky for us, we have Newt “Ethics” Gingrich to thank for how to remedy that situation. The man who led the Republican crusade of decency, and impeachment against that no good, lying, cheater Bill Clinton set the standard of respectability we can all emulate.
Mr. Family Values was chafing under the cruel leash of his second wife. (His first wife was reportedly served divorce papers while undergoing cancer treatment.) The cruel and demanding woman didn’t want to give Newt an “open marriage” to console the poor public servant in his time of selfless dedication to his country.
God’s Own Party had taken upon itself the tremendous responsibility to guide the morals of our wayward nation. Do you think its easy preaching good conservative values to the American people? Newt needed a little comfort, and release from all that tension one feels under all that pressure to preserve the sanctity of marriage and all the other family values that only Republicans possess.
It was time to take a stand. She was about to get what she deserved. And her mother needed a good old-fashioned jolt of Republican values too. Let the rich man have his way, or else.
What better time to implement his demand for marital justice than when his wife and mother-in-law were together?
According to the Washington Post:
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.
Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”
Happy birthday, Mom, and that's what I think of you and your daughter.
Bam! That’ll teach those selfish wenches a thing or two.
The next day, Newt was feeling so good about himself he went to give a lecture titled “The Demise of American Culture” and pontificated on....what else?....family values.
Well, lucky for us, we have Newt “Ethics” Gingrich to thank for how to remedy that situation. The man who led the Republican crusade of decency, and impeachment against that no good, lying, cheater Bill Clinton set the standard of respectability we can all emulate.
Mr. Family Values was chafing under the cruel leash of his second wife. (His first wife was reportedly served divorce papers while undergoing cancer treatment.) The cruel and demanding woman didn’t want to give Newt an “open marriage” to console the poor public servant in his time of selfless dedication to his country.
God’s Own Party had taken upon itself the tremendous responsibility to guide the morals of our wayward nation. Do you think its easy preaching good conservative values to the American people? Newt needed a little comfort, and release from all that tension one feels under all that pressure to preserve the sanctity of marriage and all the other family values that only Republicans possess.
It was time to take a stand. She was about to get what she deserved. And her mother needed a good old-fashioned jolt of Republican values too. Let the rich man have his way, or else.
What better time to implement his demand for marital justice than when his wife and mother-in-law were together?
According to the Washington Post:
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich in 1999 asked his second wife for an “open marriage” or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne, told The Washington Post on Thursday.
Marianne Gingrich said she first heard from the former speaker about the divorce request as she was waiting in the home of her mother on May 11, 1999, her mother’s 84th birthday. Over the phone, as she was having dinner with her mother, Newt Gingrich said, “I want a divorce.”
Happy birthday, Mom, and that's what I think of you and your daughter.
Bam! That’ll teach those selfish wenches a thing or two.
The next day, Newt was feeling so good about himself he went to give a lecture titled “The Demise of American Culture” and pontificated on....what else?....family values.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
What Class Warfare?
Something is becoming more obvious to the typical American.
The system is rigged.
It is rigged by the dominance of big money in our elections and government. It is rigged by the exclusive narrow interests of the economic elites imposed on public policy. It is rigged by the suppression of democracy by the radical Right. The system is rigged by tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the elites while increasing debt, and reducing public services. It is rigged by financial sector deregulation, off-shoring jobs, corporate written trade agreements and other public policies imposed by the elites through campaign contributions and lobbying.
This is the class war that has been waged upon us. It is not being waged by just Republicans. Democrats have been serving the elite interests as well. They need their campaign contributions too. One of the best tools for preventing Wall Street financial abuse and collapse was Glass/Steagall, and that was repealed by Clinton and the Republicans.
The economic elites are disproportionately and exponentially amassing wealth. There’s nothing wrong with rising profits or increasing wealth in and of themselves. But at what cost?
At the same time the majority is either losing or struggling to maintain their standard of living, often with little job security.
This is correctly perceived as a class war.
Most Americans agree.
A new Pew poll shows 66 percent of Americans believe there's some serious class warfare in this country.
The radical Right and certain aristocratic elites are not only unwilling to see this problem as class warfare, but are actively denying it while perpetuating it.
The good news is Americans are waking up to recognize this rigged system.
The system is rigged.
It is rigged by the dominance of big money in our elections and government. It is rigged by the exclusive narrow interests of the economic elites imposed on public policy. It is rigged by the suppression of democracy by the radical Right. The system is rigged by tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the elites while increasing debt, and reducing public services. It is rigged by financial sector deregulation, off-shoring jobs, corporate written trade agreements and other public policies imposed by the elites through campaign contributions and lobbying.
This is the class war that has been waged upon us. It is not being waged by just Republicans. Democrats have been serving the elite interests as well. They need their campaign contributions too. One of the best tools for preventing Wall Street financial abuse and collapse was Glass/Steagall, and that was repealed by Clinton and the Republicans.
The economic elites are disproportionately and exponentially amassing wealth. There’s nothing wrong with rising profits or increasing wealth in and of themselves. But at what cost?
At the same time the majority is either losing or struggling to maintain their standard of living, often with little job security.
This is correctly perceived as a class war.
Most Americans agree.
A new Pew poll shows 66 percent of Americans believe there's some serious class warfare in this country.
The radical Right and certain aristocratic elites are not only unwilling to see this problem as class warfare, but are actively denying it while perpetuating it.
The good news is Americans are waking up to recognize this rigged system.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Criminal Intent
In a discussion of GOP induced voter disenfranchisement by restrictive voter ID laws, radical Rightists declare that we cannot accuse them of wanting to strip citizens of their right to vote.
They swear straight-faced that voter fraud at the polls is a crisis, and that only they can remedy it.
They may also assert, with a straight face, that these laws are acts of nobility and goodness. And they insist we cannot possibly guess their motives or intent for these laws.
Although motives certainly may be multiple or varied, opaque or obvious, intent is clear.
Consequences such as voter disenfranchisement are very real, and clearly desired by Republicans. If voter fraud at the polls were a real issue, if it were a problem of urgent public concern, Democrats would be involved and supportive in finding solutions. They are not even invited to the discussion.
FOX (R) admits voter fraud is not pervasive. They spelled it out, “Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud”.
Republicans know what they are doing, and it is a political assault on citizens’ voting rights and democracy. Republicans have admitted they don't want anyone who disagrees with their party to vote.
From the Washington Post:
An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.
Also from the same article:
New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
House Speaker William O'Brien addresses a crowd saying students lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings." "There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College.
These are not the first indicators of their intentions. The Right’s antagonism for democracy has a history.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”– Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
Here is the simple truth:
Voter fraud is Rarely Occurring, even according to FOX(R).
Voter disenfranchisement is real, and will occur in significant numbers, directly or indirectly, due to the GOP’s deliberate restriction of voting, according to everyone but radical Rightist Republicans.
Am I clear?
Our radical Rightist friends display a cult-like fanaticism and blind loyalty to Party and cause. They will deny the obvious, along with the rights of fellow citizens, in order to establish a one party dictatorship by the economic elite minority.
And like Moonie cultists they will declare they are noble and good. However I would probably grant the qualities of nobility and goodness in the poor Moonie’s heart over the cold heartlessness of the GOP.
The radical Right’s intent to strip citizens of their right to vote is as plainly clear, and felt, as a hangman’s noose around the neck.
They swear straight-faced that voter fraud at the polls is a crisis, and that only they can remedy it.
They may also assert, with a straight face, that these laws are acts of nobility and goodness. And they insist we cannot possibly guess their motives or intent for these laws.
Although motives certainly may be multiple or varied, opaque or obvious, intent is clear.
Consequences such as voter disenfranchisement are very real, and clearly desired by Republicans. If voter fraud at the polls were a real issue, if it were a problem of urgent public concern, Democrats would be involved and supportive in finding solutions. They are not even invited to the discussion.
FOX (R) admits voter fraud is not pervasive. They spelled it out, “Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud”.
Republicans know what they are doing, and it is a political assault on citizens’ voting rights and democracy. Republicans have admitted they don't want anyone who disagrees with their party to vote.
From the Washington Post:
An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.
Also from the same article:
New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
House Speaker William O'Brien addresses a crowd saying students lack "life experience" and "just vote their feelings." "There's no doubt that this bill would help Republican causes," said Richard Sunderland III, head of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College.
These are not the first indicators of their intentions. The Right’s antagonism for democracy has a history.
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”– Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich
Here is the simple truth:
Voter fraud is Rarely Occurring, even according to FOX(R).
Voter disenfranchisement is real, and will occur in significant numbers, directly or indirectly, due to the GOP’s deliberate restriction of voting, according to everyone but radical Rightist Republicans.
Am I clear?
Our radical Rightist friends display a cult-like fanaticism and blind loyalty to Party and cause. They will deny the obvious, along with the rights of fellow citizens, in order to establish a one party dictatorship by the economic elite minority.
And like Moonie cultists they will declare they are noble and good. However I would probably grant the qualities of nobility and goodness in the poor Moonie’s heart over the cold heartlessness of the GOP.
The radical Right’s intent to strip citizens of their right to vote is as plainly clear, and felt, as a hangman’s noose around the neck.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Progressive Conservatives
In his recent column, "Obama: The conservative in 2012", E.J. Dionne says:
Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.
Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled.
If anything, we can now confuse and annoy the Right, the regressive conservatives, by claiming to be “progressive conservatives”.
I think I like this new brand we have here. I hereby welcome you all to the Progressive Conservative Movement. Let’s conserve what’s best about America, and not sell it all off to the corporate and economic elite highest bidders.
Obama is defending a tradition that sees government as an essential actor in the nation’s economy, a guarantor of fair rules of competition, a countervailing force against excessive private power, a check on the inequalities that capitalism can produce, and an instrument that can open opportunity for those born without great advantages.
Obama will thus be the conservative in 2012, in the truest sense of that word. He is the candidate defending the modestly redistributive and regulatory government the country has relied on since the New Deal, and that neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush dismantled.
If anything, we can now confuse and annoy the Right, the regressive conservatives, by claiming to be “progressive conservatives”.
I think I like this new brand we have here. I hereby welcome you all to the Progressive Conservative Movement. Let’s conserve what’s best about America, and not sell it all off to the corporate and economic elite highest bidders.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Saving American Democracy Amendment
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.
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.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
"Newspeak"
The wealthy, economic elites, aristocrats, or simply the rich, are what they have been known as for many years. Now through the indoctrination machinery of the Right, they are the “job creators”.
Never mind the pathetically sluggish job growth since fellow aristocrat Bush gave them all tax cuts. He never did reduce unemployment to the level he inherited in 2000. No, they are not creating very many jobs, or if they do, most of them are in Asia. This is beside the point.
The point is we are being indoctrinated. The Right’s Orwellian Ministry of Truth has been unilaterally redefining terms to tilt public policy debates to the advantage of the wealthy elites. “Job creators” is this year’s Right wing “newspeak” propaganda success.
Rather than a cautionary tale of warning, the Right embraces “1984” as a “How to Guide” on winning elections and governing. The Decider practically quoted the “War is peace” slogan when he said, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.”
The Right likes to paint all small business owners as job creators too. There’s one so-called “job creator” who admits he never created any jobs. And Dana Milbank dares to say most others didn’t either.
Notice all the parrots now squawking on about not taxing “job creators” are the same ones who squawked hysterically about the health care act being a “government takeover of health care”. Dutiful dupes they are. So duped and dutiful they eagerly parroted Politifact’s 2010 Lie of the Year. Also dutifully parroted was the 2009 Lie of the Year, the infamous Palin-esque “death panels”.
Anybody else see a pattern emerging from these lies? Yes, they are Republican lies, proving again the only way they can attain power is by lying.
Specifically, “job creators” and “government takeover” are the products of Republican Minister of Propaganda Frank Luntz.
And Luntz is worried about the Occupy Wall Street message, as all the greedy aristocratic elites should be. In fact, he told the recent Republican Governors Association in Florida, "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”
He even suggested they avoid the word “capitalism”. "I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."
I guess they have a problem, since more and more people are waking up to the fact that the Republicans are the top defenders of Wall Street, along with generous help from corpodems. Unregulated capitalism is not only an immoral, or at least amoral, system, it has proven to be a failed system as well. As we know, there’s no such thing as the “free market” but that won’t stop them from perpetuating the lie.
For the latest on the Right’s Orwellian newspeak, see last Thursday’s Yahoo News article, “How Republicans Are Being Taught to Talk about Occupy Wall Street”.
Along with avoiding the word “capitalism” we learn that we shouldn’t say, “Government taxes the rich”. Most Americans want the rich to pay what they did before Bush. And Luntz warns about uttering the term “middle class”. “We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."
“Not sure about that” indeed.
And speaking of Wall Street, one very important word on the “Do not use list” is “bonus”. Hmm...I wonder why?
It’s probably a safe bet to predict the Lie of the Year for 2011 will also be a fabrication by the Right.
Never mind the pathetically sluggish job growth since fellow aristocrat Bush gave them all tax cuts. He never did reduce unemployment to the level he inherited in 2000. No, they are not creating very many jobs, or if they do, most of them are in Asia. This is beside the point.
The point is we are being indoctrinated. The Right’s Orwellian Ministry of Truth has been unilaterally redefining terms to tilt public policy debates to the advantage of the wealthy elites. “Job creators” is this year’s Right wing “newspeak” propaganda success.
Rather than a cautionary tale of warning, the Right embraces “1984” as a “How to Guide” on winning elections and governing. The Decider practically quoted the “War is peace” slogan when he said, “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.”
The Right likes to paint all small business owners as job creators too. There’s one so-called “job creator” who admits he never created any jobs. And Dana Milbank dares to say most others didn’t either.
Notice all the parrots now squawking on about not taxing “job creators” are the same ones who squawked hysterically about the health care act being a “government takeover of health care”. Dutiful dupes they are. So duped and dutiful they eagerly parroted Politifact’s 2010 Lie of the Year. Also dutifully parroted was the 2009 Lie of the Year, the infamous Palin-esque “death panels”.
Anybody else see a pattern emerging from these lies? Yes, they are Republican lies, proving again the only way they can attain power is by lying.
Specifically, “job creators” and “government takeover” are the products of Republican Minister of Propaganda Frank Luntz.
And Luntz is worried about the Occupy Wall Street message, as all the greedy aristocratic elites should be. In fact, he told the recent Republican Governors Association in Florida, "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”
He even suggested they avoid the word “capitalism”. "I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."
I guess they have a problem, since more and more people are waking up to the fact that the Republicans are the top defenders of Wall Street, along with generous help from corpodems. Unregulated capitalism is not only an immoral, or at least amoral, system, it has proven to be a failed system as well. As we know, there’s no such thing as the “free market” but that won’t stop them from perpetuating the lie.
For the latest on the Right’s Orwellian newspeak, see last Thursday’s Yahoo News article, “How Republicans Are Being Taught to Talk about Occupy Wall Street”.
Along with avoiding the word “capitalism” we learn that we shouldn’t say, “Government taxes the rich”. Most Americans want the rich to pay what they did before Bush. And Luntz warns about uttering the term “middle class”. “We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."
“Not sure about that” indeed.
And speaking of Wall Street, one very important word on the “Do not use list” is “bonus”. Hmm...I wonder why?
It’s probably a safe bet to predict the Lie of the Year for 2011 will also be a fabrication by the Right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
