OMNI US
My blog: War
Department/Peace Department
My Newsletters:
Index:
See: 9-11, Bill of Rights, Bill of Rights Day, Capitalism,
Censorship, Constitution, Constitution Day, Corporate Monopoly, Corporations, Democracy
Book Forum, Dictatorship, Empire, Fascism, Grassroots, Patriot Act, Police State,
Secrecy, Surveillance, Wars, etc.
Peace, Justice, Ecology Birthdays
See OMNI’s Bulletin “Happening”
See INMOtion OMNI’s monthly newsletter.
Visit OMNI’s Library.
Contents of #1
Dick Bennett: Left? No Full Spectrum Diversity in USA
TomDispatch: US Electoral Democracy
Greg Palast: Stealing
Elections
McChesney: Internet
and Democracy
McChesney: Digital Disconnect
Clements: Controlling Corporate Power, Reversing Citizens United
Nichols: Oppose
Citizens United and Corporate Personhood
Clark and Teachout: Slow
Democracy, Grassroots Politics
Creativity, Dissent, Resistance: Rejecting Status Quo
Elder and Paul:
Better Thinking, Critical Thinking
Dick: Chomsky, Sharp,
Crises, Democracy Deficit
Anti-Corruption Act: Sign
on, Rescuing Our Government from Money
In These Times: One of numerous Pro-Democracy US
Magazines
REDUCTION OF DEMOCRACY IN THE US
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (June 16,
2012) reported on the economic crises in Greece
with an article and photo, with this caption: “An older supporter of the Greek
Communist Party stands with younger women at the main pre-election rally Friday
in central Athens .” It’s an electrifying reminder that throughout
the rest of the world people really do have a choice of the left. There is a historical left in Greece ,
the Communist Party, and in other nations of the world, a real Party people can choose to vote for,
or not..
Even more
widespread are the many Socialist parties throughout the world. There when people say “left,” they refer to
living parties and choices. In those
nations a true range of choices from right to left invigorate politics. As Bradley Gitz wrote in one of his recent
columns: “The ‘left is making a
comeback in France . Not just Francois Hollande’s Socialists, but
the hard left guys, the French Communist Party (PCF).”
But not in the
United States, not any more anyway.
A half-century ago the free-market of ideas and the rights of the First
Amendment were withdrawn from Communists and Socialists, who were systematically
and severely discriminated against and subjected to extraordinary repression by
the government, such as physical assaults, denials of freedom of speech and
assembly, political deportation and firings, dubious arrests, intense police
surveillance, illegal burglaries, wiretaps, and interception of and tampering
with mail. Equally restrictive of
communist and socialist perspectives was the widespread fear and resulting
self-censorship produced by McCarthyism’s repression—by all of the above and
fraudulent propaganda, witch hunts, loyalty oaths; until “communist” and
“socialist” were internalized by the public as unpatriotic or even
treasonous. By the 1960s, belligerent
anti-Communism and anti-Socialism had become the US credo.
The result today: there is no “left,” but only degrees of
middle to right to extreme right.
Officials, mainstream journalists, and most of the public still use the
term “left” but in a warped and delusory way: they do not mean left.
Rather, they mean left of right and far right, or middle, that is,”
liberal.” By “left” Tea Partyers mean
everybody left of them. They have
allowed safety from imagined enemies to trump democracy. And everybody opposed to a representative
form of government that actually represents the true range of social and
political possibilities likes it that way.
It’s not a
pretty story for a nation whose leaders send youth to wars claiming they are
protecting freedom at home.
References:
Bennett, James R. Control of Information in the United States I.
“Anti-Communism and Anti-Sovietism.”
Roger Eatwell. “The
Rise of ‘Left-Right’ Terminology: The Confusions of Social Science.” The
Nature of the Right: American and European Political Thought Since 1789, ed.
Roger Eatwell and Noel O’Sullivan. 1989.
Samples of Newspaper
Usage:
“Power Swings Left in Congress.” ADG (Jan.
1, 2007). Left meaning leftward from
right. Headline announcing Democrat
takeover from Republicans Jan. 2007:
Brummet, John. “It’s
True What They Say About NPR.” Northwest Arkansas Times (October 26, 2010). “Left” synonymous with “liberal.”
Gitz, Bradley. “We
Be Greece .” ADG (6-19-11). “Left” synonymous with “liberal:
___ “No New Ideas At All.”
ADG (March 18, 2012). “Left” synonymous with “liberal.”
___ “Escape from Reality.”
ADG (April 30, 2012. Quoted in text.
Tom,dispatch
All power corrupts but some must govern. -- John le Carré
The ritual performance of the legend of democracy in the
autumn of 2012 promises the conspicuous consumption of $5.8 billion, enough
money, thank God, to prove that our flag is still there. Forbidden the use of
words apt to depress a Q Score or disturb a Gallup poll, the candidates stand as product
placements meant to be seen instead of heard, their quality to be inferred from
the cost of their manufacture. The sponsors of the event, generous to a fault
but careful to remain anonymous, dress it up with the bursting in air of
star-spangled photo ops, abundant assortments of multiflavored sound bites, and
the candidates so well-contrived that they can be played for jokes, presented
as game-show contestants, or posed as noble knights-at-arms setting forth on
vision quests, enduring the trials by klieg light, until on election night they
come to judgment before the throne of cameras by whom and for whom they were
produced.
Best of all, at least from the point of view of the
commercial oligarchy paying for both the politicians and the press coverage,
the issue is never about the why of who owes what to whom, only about the how
much and when, or if, the check is in the mail. No loose talk about what is
meant by the word democracy or in what ways it refers to the cherished hope of
liberty embodied in the history of a courageous people.
Truthout combats corporatization by bringing you trustworthy
news: click here to join the effort.
The campaigns don't favor the voters with the gratitude and
respect owed to their standing as valuable citizens participant in the making
of such a thing as a common good. They stay on message with their parsing of
democracy as the ancient Greek name for the American Express card, picturing
the great, good American place as a Florida resort hotel wherein all present
receive the privileges and comforts owed to their status as valued customers,
invited to convert the practice of citizenship into the art of shopping, to
select wisely from the campaign advertisements, texting A for Yes, B for No.
The sales pitch bends down to the electorate as if to a
crowd of restless children, deems the body politic incapable of generous
impulse, selfless motive, or creative thought, delivers the insult with a
headwaiter's condescending smile. How then expect the people to trust a
government that invests no trust in them? Why the surprise that over the last
30 years the voting public has been giving ever-louder voice to its contempt
for any and all politicians, no matter what their color, creed, prior arrest
record, or sexual affiliation? The congressional disapproval rating (78% earlier
this year) correlates with the estimates of low attendance among young voters
(down 20% from 2008) at the November polls.
Democracy as an ATM
If democracy means anything at all (if it isn't what the
late Gore Vidal called "the national nonsense-word"), it is the
holding of one's fellow citizens in thoughtful regard, not because they are
beautiful or rich or famous, but because they are one's fellow citizens.
Republican democracy is a shared work of the imagination among people of myriad
talents, interests, voices, and generations that proceeds on the premise that
the labor never ends, entails a ceaseless making and remaking of its laws and
customs, i.e., a sentient organism as opposed to an ATM, the government an us,
not a them.
Contrary to the contemporary view of politics as a rat's
nest of paltry swindling, Niccolò Machiavelli, the fifteenth-century courtier
and political theorist, rates it as the most worthy of human endeavors when
supported by a citizenry possessed of the will to act rather than the wish to
be cared for. Without the "affection of peoples for
self-government...cities have never increased either in dominion or
wealth."
Thomas Paine in the opening chapter of Common Sense finds
"the strength of government and the happiness of the governed" in the
freedom of the common people to "mutually and naturally support each
other." He envisions a bringing together of representatives from every
quarter of society -- carpenters and shipwrights as well as lawyers and
saloonkeepers -- and his thinking about the mongrel splendors of democracy
echoes that of Plato in The Republic: "Like a coat embroidered with every
kind of ornament, this city, embroidered with every kind of character, would
seem to be the most beautiful."
Published in January 1776, Paine's pamphlet ran through
printings of 500,000 copies in a few months and served as the founding document
of the American Revolution, its line of reasoning implicit in Thomas
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The wealthy and well-educated
gentlemen who gathered 11 years later in Philadelphia
to frame the Constitution shared Paine's distrust of monarchy but not his faith
in the abilities of the common people, whom they were inclined to look upon as
the clear and present danger seen by the delegate Gouverneur Morris as an
ignorant rabble and a "riotous mob."
From Aristotle the founders borrowed the theorem that all
government, no matter what its name or form, incorporates the means by which
the privileged few arrange the distribution of law and property for the
less-fortunate many. Recognizing in themselves the sort of people to whom James
Madison assigned "the most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to
pursue, the common good of the society," they undertook to draft a
constitution that employed an aristocratic means to achieve a democratic end.
Accepting of the fact that whereas a democratic society puts
a premium on equality, a capitalist economy does not, the contrivance was
designed to nurture both the private and the public good, accommodate the motions
of the heart as well as the movement of the market, the institutions of
government meant to support the liberties of the people, not the ambitions of
the state. By combining the elements of an organism with those of a mechanism,
the Constitution offered as warranty for the meeting of its objectives the
character of the men charged with its conduct and deportment, i.e., the
enlightened tinkering of what both Jefferson and Hamilton conceived as a class
of patrician landlords presumably relieved of the necessity to cheat and steal
and lie.
Good intentions, like mother's milk, are a perishable
commodity. As wealth accumulates, men decay, and sooner or later an aristocracy
that once might have aspired to an ideal of wisdom and virtue goes rancid in
the sun, becomes an oligarchy distinguished by a character that Aristotle
likened to that of "the prosperous fool" -- its members so besotted
by their faith in money that "they therefore imagine there is nothing that
it cannot buy."
Postponing the Feast of Fools
The making of America 's politics over the last
236 years can be said to consist of the attempt to ward off, or at least
postpone, the feast of fools. Some historians note that what the framers of the
Constitution hoped to establish in 1787 ("a republic," according to
Benjamin Franklin, "if you can keep it") didn't survive the War of
1812. Others suggest that the republic was gutted by the spoils system
introduced by Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. None of the informed sources doubt
that it perished during the prolonged heyday of the late-nineteenth-century
Gilded Age.
Mark Twain coined the phrase to represent his further
observation that a society consisting of the sum of its vanity and greed is not
a society at all but a state of war. In the event that anybody missed Twain's
meaning, President Grover Cleveland in 1887 set forth the rules of engagement
while explaining his veto of a bill offering financial aid to the poor:
"The lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support
the government, the government should not support the people."
Twenty years later, Arthur T. Hadley, the president of Yale,
provided an academic gloss: "The fundamental division of powers in the
Constitution of the United
States is between voters on the one hand and
property owners on the other. The forces of democracy on the one side... and
the forces of property on the other side."
In the years between the Civil War and the Great Depression,
the forces of democracy pushed forward civil-service reform in the 1880s, the
populist rising in the 1890s, the progressive movement in the 1910s, President
Teddy Roosevelt's preservation of the nation's wilderness and his harassment of
the Wall Street trusts -- but it was the stock-market collapse in 1929 that
equipped the strength of the country's democratic convictions with the power of
the law. What Paine had meant by the community of common interest found voice
and form in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, in the fighting of World War II by a
citizen army willing and able to perform what Machiavelli would have recognized
as acts of public conscience.
During the middle years of the twentieth century, America at
times showed itself deserving of what Albert Camus named as a place "where
the single word liberty makes hearts beat faster," the emotion present and
accounted for in the passage of the Social Security Act, in the mounting of the
anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements, in the promise of LBJ's Great
Society. But that was long ago and in another country, and instead of making hearts
beat faster, the word liberty in America 's currently reactionary
scheme of things slows the pulse and chills the blood.
Ronald Reagan's new Morning in America brought with it in
the early 1980s the second coming of a gilded age more swinish than the first,
and as the country continues to divide ever more obviously into a nation of the
rich and a nation of the poor, the fictions of unity and democratic intent lose
their capacity to command belief. If by the time Bill Clinton had settled comfortably into the
White House it was no longer possible to pretend that everybody was as equal as
everybody else, it was clear that all things bright and beautiful were to be
associated with the word private, terminal squalor and toxic waste with the
word public.
The shaping of the will of Congress and the choosing of the
American president has become a privilege reserved to the country's equestrian
classes, a.k.a. the 20% of the population that holds 93% of the wealth, the
happy few who run the corporations and the banks, own and operate the news and
entertainment media, compose the laws and govern the universities, control the
philanthropic foundations, the policy institutes, the casinos, and the sports
arenas. Their anxious and spendthrift company bears the mark of oligarchy
ridden with the disease diagnosed by the ancient Greeks as pleonexia, the
appetite for more of everything -- more McMansions, more defense contracts,
more beachfront, more tax subsidy, more prosperous fools. Aristotle mentions a
faction of especially reactionary oligarchs in ancient Athens
who took a vow of selfishness not unlike the anti-tax pledge administered by
Grover Norquist to Republican stalwarts in modern Washington : "I will be an enemy to the
people and will devise all the harm against them which I can."
A Government That Sets Itself Above the Law
The hostile intent has been conscientiously sustained over
the last 30 years, no matter which party is in control of Congress or the White
House, and no matter what the issue immediately at hand -- the environment or
the debt, defense spending or campaign-finance reform. The concentrations of
wealth and power express their fear and suspicion of the American people with a
concerted effort to restrict their liberties, letting fall into disrepair nearly
all of the infrastructure -- roads, water systems, schools, power plants,
bridges, hospitals -- that provides the country with the foundation of its
common enterprise.
The domestic legislative measures accord with the
formulation of a national-security state backed by the guarantee of
never-ending foreign war that arms the government with police powers more
repressive than those available to the agents of the eighteenth-century British
crown. The Justice Department reserves the right to tap anybody's phone, open
anybody's mail, decide who is, and who is not, an un-American. The various
government security agencies now publish 50,000 intelligence reports a year,
monitoring the world's Web traffic and sifting the footage from surveillance
cameras as numerous as the stars in the Milky Way. President Barack Obama
elaborates President George W. Bush's notions of preemptive strike by claiming
the further privilege to order the killing of any American citizen overseas who
is believed to be a terrorist or a friend of terrorists, to act the part of
jury, judge, and executioner whenever and however it suits his exalted fancy.
Troubled op-ed columnists sometimes refer to the
embarrassing paradox implicit in the waging of secret and undeclared war under
the banners of a free, open, and democratic society. They don't proceed to the
further observation that the nation's foreign policy is cut from the same
criminal cloth as its domestic economic policy. The invasion of Iraq in 2003
and the predatory business dealing that engendered the Wall Street collapse in
2008 both enjoyed the full faith and backing of a government that sets itself
above the law.
The upper servants of the oligarchy, among them most of the
members of Congress and the majority of the news media's talking heads, receive
their economic freedoms by way of compensation for the loss of their political
liberties. The right to freely purchase in exchange for the right to freely
speak. If they wish to hold a public office or command attention as upholders
of the truth, they can't afford to fool around with any new, possibly
subversive ideas.
Paine had in mind a representative assembly that asked as
many questions as possible from as many different sorts of people as possible.
The ensuing debate was expected to be loud, forthright, and informative. James
Fenimore Cooper seconded the motion in 1838, arguing that the strength of the
American democracy rests on the capacity of its citizens to speak and think
without cant. "By candor we are not to understand trifling and
uncalled-for expositions of truth... but a sentiment that proves the conviction
of the necessity of speaking truth, when speaking at all; a contempt for all
designing evasions of our real opinions. In all the general concerns, the
public has a right to be treated with candor. Without this manly and truly
republican quality... the institutions are converted into a stupendous
fraud."
Oligarchy prefers trifling evasions to real opinions. The
preference accounts for the current absence of honest or intelligible debate on
Capitol Hill. The members of Congress embody the characteristics of only one
turn of mind -- that of the obliging publicist. They leave it to staff
assistants to write the legislation and the speeches, spend 50% of their time
soliciting campaign funds. When standing in a hotel ballroom or when seated in
a television studio, it is the duty of the tribunes of the people to insist
that the drug traffic be stopped, the budget balanced, the schools improved,
paradise regained. Off camera, they bootleg the distribution of the nation's
wealth to the gentry at whose feet they dance for coins.
A Media Enabling and Codependent
As with the Congress, so also with the major news media that
serve at the pleasure of a commercial oligarchy that pays them, and pays them
handsomely, for their pretense of speaking truth to power. On network
television, the giving voice to what Cooper would have regarded as real
opinions doesn't set up a tasteful lead-in to the advertisements for Pantene
Pro-V or the U.S. Marine Corps. The prominent figures in our contemporary Washington press corps
regard themselves as government functionaries, enabling and codependent. Their
point of view is that of the country's landlords, their practice equivalent to
what is known among Wall Street stock market touts as "securitizing the
junk."
The time allowed on Face the Nation or Meet the Press
facilitates the transmission of sound-bite spin and the swallowing of welcome
lies. Explain to us, my general, why the United
States must continue the war in Afghanistan ,
and we will relay the message to the American people in words of two syllables.
Instruct us, Mr. Chairman, in the reasons why the oil companies and the banks
produce the paper that Congress doesn't read but passes into law, and we will
show the reasons to be sound. Do not be frightened by our pretending to be
scornful or suspicious. Give us this day our daily bread, and we will hide your
stupidity and greed in plain sight, in the rose bushes of inside-the-beltway
gossip.
The cable-news networks meanwhile package dissent as tabloid
entertainment, a commodity so clearly labeled as pasteurized ideology that it
is rendered harmless and threatens nobody with the awful prospect of having to
learn something they didn't already know. Comedians on the order of Jon Stewart
and Bill Maher respond with jokes offered as consolation prizes for the
acceptance of things as they are and the loss of hope in things as they might
become. As soporifics, not, God forbid, as incitements to revolution or the
setting up of guillotines in Yankee Stadium and the Staples Center
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney hold each other responsible for
stirring up class warfare between the 1% and the 99%; each of them can be
counted upon to mourn the passing of America 's once-upon-a-time
egalitarian state of grace. They deliver the message to fund-raising dinners
that charge up to $40,000 for the poached salmon, but the only thing worth
noting in the ballroom or the hospitality tent is the absence among the invited
bank accounts (prospective donor, showcase celebrity, attending journalist) of
anybody intimately acquainted with -- seriously angry about, other than
rhetorically interested in -- the fact of being poor.
When intended to draw blood instead of laughs, speaking
truth to power doesn't lead to a secure retirement on the beach at Martha's Vineyard . Paine was the most famous political
thinker of his day, his books in the late eighteenth century selling more
copies than the Bible, but after the Americans had won their War of Independence,
his notions of democracy were deemed unsuitable to the work of dividing up the
spoils. The proprietors of their newfound estate claimed the privilege of
apportioning its freedoms, and they remembered that Paine opposed the holding
of slaves and the denial to women of the same sort of rights awarded to men. A
man too much given to plain speaking, on too familiar terms with the lower
orders of society, and therefore not to be trusted.
His opinions having become both suspect and irrelevant in
Philadelphia, Paine sailed in 1787 for Europe, where he was soon charged with
seditious treason in Britain (for publishing part two of The Rights of Man),
imprisoned and sentenced to death in France (for his opposition to the
execution of Louis XVI on the ground that it was an unprincipled act of
murder). In 1794, Paine fell from grace as an American patriot as a consequence
of his publishing The Age of Reason, the pamphlet in which he ridiculed the
authority of an established church and remarked on "the unrelenting
vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled." The
American congregation found him guilty of the crime of blasphemy, and on his
return to America in 1802,
he was met at the dock in Baltimore
with newspaper headlines damning him as a "loathsome reptile," a
"lying, drunken, brutal infidel." When he died in poverty in 1809, he
was buried, as unceremoniously as a dog in a ditch, in unhallowed ground on his
farm in New Rochelle .
Paine's misfortunes speak to the difference between politics
as a passing around of handsome platitudes and politics as a sowing of the
bitter seeds of social change. The speaking of truth to power when the doing so
threatens to lend to words the force of deeds is as rare as it is brave. The
signers of the Declaration of Independence accepted the prospect of being
hanged in the event that America
lost the war.
Our own contemporary political discourse lacks force and
meaning because it is a commodity engineered, like baby formula and Broadway
musicals, to dispose of any and all unwonted risk. The forces of property
occupying both the government and the news media don't rate politics as a
serious enterprise, certainly not as one worth the trouble to suppress.
It is the wisdom of the age -- shared by Democrat and
Republican, by forlorn idealist and anxious realist -- that money rules the
world, transcends the boundaries of sovereign states, serves as the light unto
the nations, and waters the tree of liberty. What need of statesmen, much less
politicians, when it isn't really necessary to know their names or remember
what they say? The future is a product to be bought, not a fortune to be told.
Happily, at least for the moment, the society is rich enough
to afford the staging of the fiction of democracy as a means of quieting the
suspicions of a potentially riotous mob with the telling of a fairy tale. The
rising cost of the production -- the pointless nominating conventions decorated
with 15,000 journalists as backdrop for the 150,000 balloons -- reflects the
ever-increasing rarity of the demonstrable fact. The country is being asked to
vote in November for television commercials because only in the fanciful time
zone of a television commercial can the American democracy still be said to
exist.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to
receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here
Billionaires & Ballot
Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps
by Greg Palast 2012
 |
 |
|
Synopses
& Reviews
Publisher Comments:
NOW
A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER!
A close presidential
election in November could well come down to contested states or even
districts--an election decided by vote theft? It could happen this year. Based
on Greg Palast and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s investigative reporting for Rolling
Stone and BBC television, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to
Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps might be the most important book
published this year--one that could save the election. Last week Billionaires
& Ballot Bandits debuted on the NYT Bestseller list at #10 in paperback
nonfiction.
Billionaires
& Ballot Bandits names the filthy-rich
sugar-daddies who are super-funding the Super-PACs of both
parties--billionaires with nicknames like "The Ice Man," "The
Vulture" and, of course, The Brothers Koch. Told with Palast's
no-holds-barred, reporter-on-the-beat style, the facts as he lays them out are
staggering. What emerges in Billionaires & Ballot Bandits is the
never-before-told-story of the epic battle being fought behind the scenes
between the old money banking sector that still supports Obama, and the new
hedge fund billionaires like Paul Singer who not only support Romney but also
are among his key economic advisors. Although it has not been reported, Obama
has shown some backbone in standing up to the financial excesses of the men
behind Romney. Billionaires & Ballot Bandits exposes the previously
unreported details on how operatives plan to use the hundreds of millions in
Super-PAC money pouring into this election. We know the money is pouring in,
but Palast shows us the convoluted ways the money will be used to suppress your
vote.
The story of the
billionaires and why they want to buy an election is matched with the nine ways
they can steal the election. His story of the sophisticated new trickery will
pick up on Palast's giant New York Times bestseller, The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy.
Synopsis:
A
close presidential election in November could well come down to contested
states or even districts--an election decided by vote theft? It could happen
this year. Based on Greg Palast and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s investigative
reporting for Rolling Stone and BBC television, Billionaires &
Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps might be the
most important book published this year--one that could save the
election.
Billionaires
& Ballot Bandits names the filthy-rich
sugar-daddies who are super-funding the Super-PACs of both
parties--billionaires with nicknames like "The Ice Man," "The
Vulture" and, of course, The Brothers Koch. Told with Palast's
no-holds-barred, reporter-on-the-beat style, the facts as he lays them out are
staggering. What emerges in Billionaires & Ballot Bandits is the
never-before-told-story of the epic battle being fought behind the scenes
between the old money banking sector that still supports Obama, and the new
hedge fund billionaires like Paul Singer who not only support Romney but also
are among his key economic advisors. Although it has not been reported, Obama
has shown some backbone in standing up to the financial excesses of the men
behind Romney. Billionaires & Ballot Bandits exposes the previously
unreported details on how operatives plan to use the hundreds of millions in
Super-PAC money pouring into this election. We know the money is pouring in,
but Palast shows us the convoluted ways the money will be used to suppress your
vote.
The story of the
billionaires and why they want to buy an election is matched with the nine ways
they can steal the election. His story of the sophisticated new trickery will
pick up on Palast's giant New York Times bestseller, The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy.
About the Author
Bestselling
author GREG PALAST's most recent book is Vulture's Picnic. Author
of a number of previous bestsellers, including The Best Democracy Money Can
Buy, and Armed Madhouse, Greg Palast is currently a Nation Institute
Fellow and BBC correspondent. He lives in New York City
and Long Island .
Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. is the Dean of the Pace
University School of Environmental Law, Chairman of the Riverkeeper Alliance,
an attorney representing victims of voting rights violations, and contributing
editor to Rolling Stone magazine.
Ted Rall's political and social commentary cartoons have appeared in
hundreds of publications, including Rolling Stone, Time, Fortune,
the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Village Voice
and New York Times. A finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, he has twice won
the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Prize. Visit him at Rall.com.
Anne Elizabeth Moore, Truthout: In this
interview near the release of his latest book, Digital Disconnect, McChesney draws on his decades of experience
as a media-watcher and -maker to ask the big questions about the future of
the Internet
Also Available:
·
By Robert W.
McChesney
·
By John Nichols,
Robert W. McChesney
·
By Robert W.
McChesney
Advance Praise for Digital Disconnect:
"Once again, McChesney stands at the crossroads of media dysfunction and the denial of democracy, illuminating the complex issues involved and identifying a path forward to try to repair the damage. Here's hoping the rest of us have the good sense to listen this time." —Eric Alterman, professor of English and journalism, "McChesney penetrates to the heart of the issue: Change the SystemChange the Internet. BothAnd—not EitherOr. Indispensable reading as we lay groundwork for the coming great movement to reclaim —Gar Alperovitz, author of What Then Must We Do? Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution, and professor of political economy, "A provocative and far-reaching account of how capitalism has shaped the Internet in the —Kirkus Reviews 
Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the
Internet Against Democracy by ROBERT
W. MCCHESNEY. New Press,
2013.
A PARADIGM-SHIFTING ANALYSIS
OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INTERNET AND THE ECONOMY FROM THE CELEBRATED
SCHOLAR AND AWARD-WINNING AUTHOR
Robert McChesney is one of the nation’s most
important analysts of the media.
—Howard Zinn
Celebrants and skeptics alike have produced valuable analyses of
the Internet’s effect on us and our world, oscillating between utopian bliss
and dystopian hell. But according to Robert W. McChesney, arguments on both
sides fail to address the relationship
between economic power and the Internet.
McChesney’s award-winning Rich Media, Poor Democracy skewered the assumption that a society
drenched in commercial information is a democratic one. In Digital Disconnect, McChesney returns to this provocative thesis in light of the
advances of the digital age. He argues
that the sharp decline in the enforcement of antitrust violations, the
increase in patents on digital technology and proprietary systems, and
massive indirect subsidies and other policies have made the internet a place
of numbing commercialism. A
handful of monopolies now dominate the political economy, from Google,
which garners a 97 percent share of the mobile search market, to Microsoft,
whose operating system is used by over 90 percent of the world’s
computers.
Capitalism’s colonization of the Internet has
spurred the collapse of credible journalism and made the internet an
unparalleled apparatus for government and corporate surveillance and a
disturbingly antidemocratic force.
In Digital Disconnect, Robert McChesney offers a
groundbreaking critique of the Internet, urging us to reclaim the
democratizing potential of the digital revolution while we still can.
Robert W. McChesney is the Gutgsell endowed Professor in the Department of
Communication at the
Pub Date: Spring 2013
Format: hardcover Trim: 6 1/8 x 9 1/4, 320 pages ISBN: 978-1-5955 |
JEFF CLEMENTS, CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE:
WHY THEY HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU DO AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Berrett-Koehler,
2012. John Nichols: “Clements does a great job of exposing the
machinations of the corporations and the courts. But his finest contribution is a roadmap for
overturning the Citizens United ruling with a
constitutional amendment. We can get
there from here; indeed, as Clements tells us, we must if we hope to make the
promise of American democracy real not just at town meetings in Vermont but in the swamp that is Washington , D.C.
Why the 2012 Election Was a Vote
for Democracy
John
Nichols November 14, 2012 | This
article appeared in the December 3, 2012 edition of The Nation.
(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Democracy has taken quite a beating over the past several years, with the blows raining down from an increasingly activist and obsessively pro-corporate Supreme Court, voter-ID promoting Republican governors and legislatures, and Karl Rove’s empire of influence. It was easy to imagine, going into the November 6 election, that the fix was in. But the people pushed back, giving President Obama a 3.4 million popular vote victory, a 332–206 Electoral College landslide, a Senate that is more Democratic and more progressive, and a House with considerably fewer Tea Party extremists. Reversing the pattern of the 2010 Republican wave, voters chose labor-backed Democrats in seven of eleven gubernatorial races and handed key legislative chambers in
About
the Author
John Nichols
John Nichols, a
pioneering political blogger, has written the Beat since 1999. His posts have
been circulated...
Also
by the Author
Obama’s modestly enlightened statement has right-wingers in a
tizzy. What would they say about Roosevelt ’s
proclamations decrying greed and celebrating “our sense of social justice”?
This has led some commentators to imagine that a template has
been developed for defending the will of the people in the face of
unprecedented financial and structural assaults on the democratic process. But
that’s a naïve assumption. It obscures the fact that a combination of
gerrymandering and right-wing Super PAC money prevented Nancy Pelosi and the
Democrats from regaining control of the House, and that many state capitols are
still dominated by anti-union die-hards like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker,
Ohio Governor John Kasich and their allies. And just because an incumbent
president, reasonably well-funded Democrats, and fully mobilized labor, reproductive
rights and civil rights activists were able in 2012 to push back against an
unprecedented onslaught of right-wing Super PAC money does not mean they will
be able to do so when more sophisticated and ever more abundantly financed
conservatives return in 2014 or 2016—as they surely will.
The better lesson to take from 2012 is that voters really do
want a fair and functional democracy, and that Democrats and their allies
should use the authority they have been handed to fight for it. Americans do
not want to cede control of their communities to austerity appointees, as
evidenced by Michigan
In Montana and Colorado Montana
and Colorado votes align those states with California , Hawaii , Massachusetts , New Jersey ,
New Mexico , Rhode Island
and Vermont United States —including
Chicago , San Francisco
and conservative Pueblo , Colorado Colorado and Montana
That was especially evident in Senate elections, where some of
the biggest winners were outspoken backers of a constitutional amendment to
overturn Citizens United. Independent Vermont
Senator Bernie Sanders made his stance a central theme of a re-election that
secured 71 percent of the vote; he’s proposing a Saving American Democracy
Amendment that says: “Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights
equal to real people. Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.” Ohio Senator
Sherrod Brown, who beat back an unprecedented Super PAC assault, led his
campaign website with a petition to “Overturn Ctizens United.” Newly elected Wisconsin Senator Tammy
Baldwin supports an amendment, as does Maine Senator-elect Angus King, an
independent who is likely to caucus with the Democrats.
They’re not alone. President Obama argued in an online
conversation shortly before the Democratic National Convention that “we need to
seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturnCitizens United,” and the Democratic
platform declared: “We support campaign finance reform, by constitutional
amendment if necessary.” The president may have an opportunity to appoint
several Supreme Court justices who will recognize the need to reverse not only
the Citizens United ruling
but a series of decisions that handed overwhelming power to those with
overwhelming amounts of money.
But presuming that the courts can quickly or certainly be
repurposed as defenders of democracy is another naïve assumption. The president
is right to argue that the movement to amend “can shine a spotlight on the
Super PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.” And the voters are
right to say, as they have with their ballots in states and communities
nationwide, that corporations are not people. Democracy is popular, so popular
that it beat back plutocracy in 2012. Those who won have a democracy mandate; they
should use it to repair the damage done and usher in a new era where money is
controlled and the popular will is unleashed.
Slow
Democracy: Rediscovering Community, Bringing Decision Making Back Home by Susan Clark and Woden Teachout. According to John
Nichols’ review, the book shows us
"what works: town meetings, deliberative gatherings...citizens
collaborating....This is the antidote to big-money politics and the
punditocracy." -- Dick
CREATIVITY,
Dissent, Resistance
The Nation Magazine presented
several commentaries on the nature and significance of “creative
response.” Organized by Antonino
D’Ambrosio, who created the film Let Fury
Have the Hour, the several
contributors, writers and artists, propose how a life of creativity opposes
consumerism, greed, violence and war.
D’Ambrosio discusses some of the subjects of his film, for example Ai
Weiwei and Pussy Riot. At the heart of
them all is their defiance of the cynical
claim that we must accept conditions as they are. –Dick
CRITICAL
THINKING AND DEMOCRACY
30 Days to Better Thinking
and Better Living: A Guide for
Improving Every Aspect of Your Life. Revised,
expanded.
Table of Contents, overviews and selected
pages.
Sample_30 Days to Better Thinking and Better Living
Author: Linda Elder and Richard Paul
Publisher: Prentice Hall
Copyright: 2006
Pages: 89 $13.59
Critical thinking is at once simple and complex. Though there are many layers to critical thinking, and you can always deepen your understanding of it, there are some basic ideas in critical thinking that, if taken seriously, can almost immediately improve the quality of your life. This book offers 30 such ideas. You can focus on one idea per day or one idea per week. And each idea is immediately applicable to your life. This book is for anyone interested in improving the quality of their lives by improving the quality of their thinking.
Publisher: Prentice Hall
Copyright: 2006
Pages: 89 $13.59
Critical thinking is at once simple and complex. Though there are many layers to critical thinking, and you can always deepen your understanding of it, there are some basic ideas in critical thinking that, if taken seriously, can almost immediately improve the quality of your life. This book offers 30 such ideas. You can focus on one idea per day or one idea per week. And each idea is immediately applicable to your life. This book is for anyone interested in improving the quality of their lives by improving the quality of their thinking.
The 30 Days Book is a revised and updated version of the original 25 Days
to Better Thinking and Better Living.
Additional Information About:
30 Days to Better Thinking and Better Living
There is nothing we do as humans that does not involve our thinking. Our thinking tells us what to believe, what to reject, what is important, what is unimportant, what is true, what is false, who are our friends, who are our enemies, how we should spend our time, what jobs we should pursue, where we should live, who we should marry, how we should parent. Everything we know, believe, want, fear, and hope for, our thinking tells us.
It follows, then, that the quality of our thinking is the primary
determinant of the quality of our lives. It has implications for how we go
about doing, literally, everything we do.
Therefore, learning to think at the highest level of quality, or to think
critically, is too important to leave to chance. Critical thinking is the
disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are capable of
using in any set of circumstances. Through developed critical capacities, you
can take command of the thinking that is commanding you.
Becoming a critical thinker requires that you learn to observe, monitor,
analyze, assess, and reconstruct thinking of many sorts in many dimensions of
human life. It requires the building of important habits of mind. It has
implications for every act that takes place in your mind. It requires a special
form of dedication and perseverance, honesty and integrity. It can be done only
if taken seriously and pursued throughout a lifetime.
This book will show you how to use your mind to improve your mind. Each of
the ideas in it can help you take command of the mind that is controlling your
thoughts, emotions, desires and behavior.
Our hope is not in a miracle transformation, but in laying a foundation
for your future intellectual and emotional growth. We are merely scratching the
surface of deep and complex topics. We do not provide a quick fix, but rather
places to begin. When you begin to take your intellectual growth seriously, you
begin to see payoffs in every part of your life.
But first, you must wake your mind up. You must begin to
understand your mind. You must begin to see when it is causing you problems.
You must begin to see when it is causing others problems. You must learn how to
trap it when it tries to hide from itself (using one of the many forms of
self-deception of which it is naturally skilled). You must discover some of the
trash and nonsense you have unknowingly taken in during years of passive
absorption - to which all of us are subject. This book will show you how to
begin.
CHOMSKY,
3 CRISES, SHARP, US
DEMOCRACY DEFICIT By Dick Bennett In a talk Noam Chomsky
gave in June 2005, entitled “Imminent Crises,” he analyzed three crises facing
the US
The three crises are: 1) “threat of nuclear war, which is very
high”; 2) “threat of environmental catastrophe,” of which “the U.S. is alone in refusing to take any steps”’
and 3) failure of the US
Despite the opinion of
“official strategic analysts” that “the current [nuclear] policies of the Bush
administration carry. . .’an appreciable risk of ultimate doom,” the policies
remain the same. Billions of dollars
are still being spent annually not only on maintaining the US
Regarding the environmental
crisis, again Chomsky quotes from a national scientific group warning of
catastrophe if significant changes in policy are not done, and criticizing the US
These dire failures of governmental
responsibility result from the failure of relevant democratic institutions to
function. For example, despite the “overwhelming
majority of the U.S.
population. . .in favor of signing the [Kyoto ]
Protocol,” almost alone the US
And the democracy deficit is
real, which provides Chomsky with an optimistic conclusion. The candidates avoided these three issues in
2004 [and in 2012], because they knew the majority population “is
overwhelmingly in favor of cutting the military spending, of increasing social
spending. . .more funding for renewable energy, more funding for the UN.” “In general, there’s just an enormous gulf
between opinion and public policy which is in many ways a very optimistic
conclusion—very optimistic.”
As Gene Sharp would agree, whose abhorrence of tyranny and love for
liberation he has expressed in book after book for over forty years, to
worldwide approval (except from tyrants).
In From Dictatorship to Democracy(1993-2008) he expresses his “sad
realization that every dictatorship leaves such death and destruction in its
wake” and his consequent “determined hope that prevention of tyranny might be
possible” (xviii).
This is not to suggest that
the US US US US US
Whether the US population’s
understanding of the three crises will ever break through electoral and media
domination by the few and the public’s fear and patriotism and the governing
myths of the country into action for change, I cannot predict, but it is a
prerequisite to moving the nation from democracy deficit and nuclear and
climate catastrophes to democracy and freedom.
ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT
ELECTIONS
SOLD. POLITICIANS BRIBED. MONEY CONTROLLING OUR GOVERNMENT.
IT’S NOT AMERICAN,
it’s corruption
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ACT
The American Anti-Corruption Act gets
money out of politics, so the people can get back in.HELP PASS THE ACT(AND
STOP THE CORRUPTION)
ABOUT THE ACT
The Act was crafted by former Federal
Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter in consultation with dozens of
strategists, democracy reform leaders and constitutional attorneys from across
the political spectrum.
The Act would transform how elections
are financed, how lobbyists influence politics, and how political money is
disclosed. It’s a sweeping proposal that would reshape the rules of American
politics, and restore ordinary Americans as the most important stakeholders
instead of major donors. The Act enjoys support from progressives and
conservatives alike.
Constitutional
attorneys confirm that the provisions are
constitutional. The
Act is being championed by theRepresent.Us campaign. Click here to
support this campaign.
·
·
HOW TO GET
MONEY OUT:
1.
1
1
Draft
comprehensive legislation to
Stop bribery, End secret money & Empower voters.
Stop bribery, End secret money & Empower voters.
2.
2
2
Get a
million Americans to become citizen co-sponsors of the new law. That's where you come
in.
ADD YOUR
NAME DONATE
3.
3Mobilize a massive, national movement for a government that represents
the people, not the money.
4.
4Use the power of the Represent.Us campaign to pressure
politicians to formally Co-Sponsor the Act as is, with no
changes, delays, or loopholes.
5.
5Leverage the power of the national movement to vote out
politicians who do not stand behind the Act.
ADD YOUR NAME TO CO-SPONSOR THE ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT
pass the Act
Thank you for
becoming a Citizen Co-sponsor.
Now, click below to
enter mission control, where you can invite and recruit more co-sponsors
Or just spread the word
·
·
·
·
·
FORMER
LOBBYIST JACK ABRAMOFF EXPLAINS HOW BRIBERY WORKS
·
FORMER FEC
CHAIRMAN TREVOR POTTER ON BUYING ELECTIONS
·
CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHOLAR LARRY LESSIG ON HOW TO EMPOWER VOTERS
·
·
THE AMERICAN ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT
SUMMARY OF
PROVISIONS
Get Money out of Politics:
Stop lobbyist bribery, End secret money & Empower voters.
·
1
STOP POLITICIANS FROM TAKING BRIBES
Prohibit members of Congress from soliciting
and receiving contributions from any industry or entity they regulate,
including those industries’ lobbyists. Prohibit all fundraising during
Congressional working hours.
Members of Congress who sit on
powerful committees get extraordinary amounts of money from special interests
regulated by those committees. Politicians routinely host fundraisers, and
invite lobbyists to contribute to their campaigns. The result is a Congress
made up of politicians dependent on those special interests to raise the money
necessary to win reelection. Politicians are forced to create laws that are
favorable to those interests, often at the expense of the public interest.
·
2
LIMIT SUPER PAC CONTRIBUTIONS AND “COORDINATION”
Require SuperPACs to abide by the same
contribution limits as other political committees. Toughen rules regarding
SuperPACs’ and other groups’ coordination with political campaigns and
political parties.
The Supreme Court's Citizens United
and subsequent court cases ruled that SuperPACs have the right to raise and
spend unlimited money influencing elections, so long as the SuperPACs do not
coordinate with the candidate campaigns. Since Citizens United, we've seen
tremendous coordination between campaigns and their SuperPACs, making a mockery
of the "independence" that the courts thought would exist. SuperPACs
have become extensions of the campaigns, and allow mega-donors to exert undue
influence on election outcomes.
·
3
PREVENT JOB OFFERS AS BRIBES
Close the “revolving door” where elected
representatives and their staff sell their legislative power in exchange for
high-paying jobs when they leave office. Create a “cooling off” period on
private employment that will last 5 years for all Congress members and all
senior staff (currently 2 years in the Senate, 1 year in the House, and 1 year
for senior staff.)
Today, politicians routinely move
straight from Congress to lucrative lobbying jobs on K Street
·
4
CALL ALL PEOPLE WHO LOBBY, LOBBYISTS
Significantly expand the definition of and
register all lobbyists to prevent influencers from skirting the rules.
Today, the definition of who is a
lobbyist—and who is not—is weak. The result: members of congress and their
staff end up working as “historical advisors” (for all intents and purposes as
lobbyists) to skirt the law while receiving big money to influence policy.
Lawmakers are not subject to accountability since the public does not know all
the people they meet with who try to sway them on policy decisions.
·
5
LIMIT LOBBYIST DONATIONS
Limit the amount that lobbyists and their
clients can contribute to federal candidates, political parties, and political
committees to $500 per year and limit lobbyist fundraising for political
campaigns. Federal contractors
are already banned from contributing to campaigns: extend that ban to
lobbyists, high-level executives, government relations employees, and PACs of
federal government contractors.
Lobbyists currently must abide by the
same contribution limits to electoral campaigns as everyone else: $2500 per
election. Lobbyists "bundle" these $2500 contributions with other
lobbyists, and individuals working for special interests that seek to influence
politicians. This adds up to serious money and political favors in return.
·
6
END SECRET MONEY
Mandate full transparency of all political
money. Require any organization that spends $10,000 or more on advertisements
to elect or defeat federal candidates to file a disclosure report online with
the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours. List each of the donors who
gave $10,000 or more to the organization to run such ads. This includes all PACs,
501c nonprofits, or other groups that engage in electioneering.
Elections are being flooded with
secret money funneled through "501c" organizations that are not
required to disclose the names of donors. 501c's either spend money directly to
influence elections, or make unlimited contributions to SuperPACs. This allows
secret political donors to flood elections with money and, thus, influence
outcomes.
·
7
EMPOWER ALL VOTERS WITH A TAX REBATE
Build up the influence voters by creating a
biennial $100 Tax Rebate that they can use to make qualified contributions to
federal candidates, political parties, and political committees. Flooding
elections with small-donor contributions that will offset the huge spenders.
Candidates and political groups will only be eligible for these funds if they
agree to a set of contribution limits: they will only accept money from small
donors (giving $500 or less a year), other groups abiding by the limits, and
the Tax Rebates themselves.
Nearly $6 billion was spent on the
2012 elections, and the vast majority came from big special interest donors. In
2008, less than 0.1 percent of Americans contributed $2,300 or more.
Politicians are dependent on this tiny percentage of the population. To change
this, we need to dramatically increase the number of small donors to politics,
so that politicians become dependent on everyday Americans and not moneyed
interests. That's how we get politicians who actually fight for the general
public.
·
8
DISCLOSE “BUNDLING”
Require federal candidates to disclose the
names of individuals who “bundle” contributions for the member of Congress or
candidate, regardless of
whether such individuals are registered lobbyists.
·
9
ENFORCE THE RULES
Strengthen the Federal Election Commission’s
independence and strengthen the House and Senate ethics enforcement processes.
Provide federal prosecutors the additional tools necessary to combat
corruption, and prohibit lobbyists who fail to properly register and disclose
their activities from engaging in federal lobbying activities for a period of two years.
Federal agencies routinely fail to
enforce the anti-corruption rules that already exist because their leadership
are appointed by those they are supposed to regulate. The result is an
elections system where even lax rules can be skirted or broken with impunity.
Sounds
tough? It is. But this is why it will work
·
Reform
will only occur at a moment of crisis. We will harness public anger and demand
for change.
·
We
must start with the people, not Congress, and gather an unprecedented
coalition.
·
We
must engage liberals, conservatives and independents. Highly visible
spokespeople from all sides will aid us.
·
Politicians
will only act if forced to by electoral pressure. We will unseat politicians
who don’t cooperate.
·
The
solution must be comprehensive. Incremental reform won’t work: it has to come
as a package.
But we need your help
·
·
The specifics
Why?
Campaign finance isn’t just about
money, or even special interests -- it’s about leveling the playing field. It’s
about who we are as a people, and what we stand for as a nation. It’s about the
quality, credibility and integrity of the issues that get argued, hashed out
and decided every single day in Washington America
The campaign
Represent.Us is an unprecedented movement of
conservatives and progressives to pass the American Anti-Corruption Act. The
Act is comprehensive legislation written by former Federal Elections Commission
Chairman Trevor Potter with help from dozens of constitutional attorneys,
advocates and academics. It would sever the tie between politicians and special
interest lobbyists, without requiring an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Who’s behind the campaign?
Our
board of advisors can be found on the Represent.Us
website
Our plan to win
Five steps:
1.
We
started with the people, not Congress. Unlike most previous legislative reform
efforts, the campaign to pass the American Anti-Corruption Act began by
mobilizing a massive national movement. The campaign is enlisting disillusioned
members of organizations beaten by K
Street
2.
We
are a coalition of liberals, conservatives, and independents. Americans
self-identify as roughly one-third liberal, one third moderate, and one third
conservative; and nearly all support sweeping reform. Highly visible supporters
from the right and the left will inoculate us against the maddeningly effective
nonsense of spin doctors who label basic democratic values as radical or
un-American.
3.
Represent.Us will force politicians to act through
electoral pressure. We will unseat politicians who fail to co-sponsor the Act
in its entirety. Hard-hitting political accountability is the only strategy
that will compel our leaders to fundamentally change the system.
4.
The
American Anti-Corruption Act is comprehensive. For decades, legislative efforts
have been focused on singular policy reforms. Political money is like water,
with the uncanny ability to slip through the cracks. The Act puts sweeping
reform agenda into one airtight package.
5.
Reform
will only occur at a moment of crisis. The 2012 election cycle was wrought with
the worst political corruption in American history. We are harnessing the
outcomes of the crisis - anger and demands for ambitious change - to position a
consensus reform solution for legislative action. The American Anti-Corruption
Act is the solution.
The Represent.Us timeline
Nov.
2012: Call for one million Citizen Co-sponsors.
Late
2013: Introduce the Anti-Corruption Act to Congress and ask every
member to co-sponsor it.
Early
2014: Unseat members of Congress who refuse to co-sponsor the
Anti-Corruption Act.
Beyond: Throughout history, campaigns that
come from the people have been the only way to create real change. When the
people lead, the leaders will follow.
How can I get more involved?
We
need people like you recruiting their friends, families and neighbors to become
Citizen Co-Sponsors. You can do this using social media and email or, if you’re
interested, you can become part of a Represent.Us local action group which are forming
all over the country. If you want to get more involved email info@represent.us.
Citizen Co-sponsors are...
A "Citizen Co-Sponsor" is
someone who has added their name in support of the American Anti-Corruption
Act, the new law to get money out of politics. That's it. No money, no work,
just add your name to help reach our goal of one million co-sponsors.
We borrowed this term from Congress,
because laws are typically "co-sponsored" by members of Congress when
they introduce a bill for consideration by the Senate and House of
Representatives.
But with special interests having
near-total control over Congress these days, our representatives aren't likely
to co-sponsor, pass, or even consider a law like the one we're proposing.
That's why we need a million Citizen Co-Sponsors – ordinary Americans – united
behind the Anti-Corruption Act before we ask Congress to pass it. We need to
show them we've got the political power to hold them accountable if they don't
support this sweeping reform.
That's where you come in. Add your
name and be a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the Anti-Corruption Act. We promise we
won't spam you and your information is completely private.
How this campaign complements the efforts to amend the
constitution
We support those trying to amend the
constitution to get money out, and we want them to succeed. We also believe
that winning reform is like climbing Mount Everest .
If you’re at base camp and you have enough climbers, you should send a few
teams up different routes to increase the likelihood of success. That’s what
Represent.Us is about... adding another team, and taking a different but
complementary path... and rooting for each other along the way. An amendment
requires two thirds of the Congress and ratification by three quarters of the
state legislatures – a mighty task. Common sense requires other proposals
co-exist alongside those efforts.
The Anti-Corruption Act has been
crafted for the past year by a top-caliber team of constitutional and campaign
finance attorneys. The Act was written by former Federal Elections Commission
Chairman Trevor Potter, with help from dozens of constitutional attorneys,
advocates and academics. It will sever the tie between politicians and special
interest lobbyists -- without requiring an amendment to the U.S.
The Anti-Corruption Act is completely
transformative, and will end business as usual in Washington
The constitutionality of the Anti-Corruption Act
The Anti-Corruption Act has been
crafted with a sharp eye toward avoiding provisions that could be overturned –
even by the current Supreme Court. According to feedback from a dozen top
constitutional lawyers, we have done that. While the Act does not eliminate
SuperPAC’s, it does curtail their power while protecting free speech rights. It
prevents them from coordinating with candidates; it limits contributions to
SuperPACs that do not act truly independent of campaigns, and it limits the
ability of secret “501c” nonprofits to funnel money to SuperPACs.
We
work with many other reform groups. We all meet on the phone regularly to keep
each other abreast of our plans. We spent several months vetting Represent.Us and The American Anti-Corruption Act
with nearly every group, and we collaborate with various groups on actions and
sign-ons.
For this campaign, we’re making a
concerted effort to enlist the active support of groups and constituencies that
have not historically been a major part of the reform movement. Our proposal is
specially designed to be both hard-hitting and appeal broadly: from Occupy on
the left to the Tea Party on the right; Republicans, Democrats and everyone in
between.
·
Copyright
© 2012, United Republic
·
Privacy
·
Press
·
855.585.8100
x29
·
P.O. Box 60008
Florence , MA
01062
·
·
·
·
·
IN THESE TIMES
many excellent online journals, blogs, essays maintain the
voices of grassroots democracy, anti-war/empire, human rights, free
speech. And this tradition continues in
print with magazines like The
Progressive, Z Magazine, The Nation, and In These Times. The April
2013 no. of ITT includes articles on
the Tea Party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, capitalism taking over the
internet, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, violence against women,
parent-teacher unions, Cuba
END US
No comments:
Post a Comment