If you'd like to take a more activist role in the Alliance for Democracy, why not run for the Alliance national council? The council meets once a month by conference call to discuss ongoing and potential new campaigns and approve budgets. Any member in good standing is welcome to run. We invite you to contact the office and find out more if you're interested, or if you have questions about Alliance for Democracy structure and governance in general.
Candidates for all posts on the council are welcome, as well as at-large members and regional representatives. Candidates should expect a minimum time commitment of 10 hours per month, or more if you take a leadership role in a campaign or in coalition-building--which we hope you do! Regional reps should be prepared to do some outreach to members and allied groups in their area. All potential candidates need to be on email, as much pre-conference call discussion takes place online.
We welcome regional representative candidates from all regions (see this page of our website to see what the regions are) , but especially welcome regional representative candidates from the following areas:
New York state
the Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missisippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee
We look forward to seeing your hat in the ring!
Read more...
Build a just society with a sustainable and equitable economy
Have a potluck brunch or supper gathering and collaborate on a letter to the editor or an op-ed on any of our campaign topics. Here are good guidelines for how to write and submit letters and op-eds.
Health Care for Main Street Not Wall Street
1. Read “The ‘Public Option’ Is Not Dead” about the political possibility and perils for Senate Democrats and Congress if they do not pass some form of a public plan.
We must keep up the pressure with letters to the editor and calls to our Senators and Representatives. Let them know that single payer/ Medicare for All is the best solution to the problems of our current system.
Corporate Globalization and Positive Alternatives Campaign 1. Go to the movies with Michael Moore. Buy of block of tickets – ask for a reduced rate - and invite AfDers, family and friends to Capitalism: A Love Story. Listen to “Naomi Klein in Conversation with Michael Moore.” Continue for an after-movie dinner or desert conversation about how corporate capitalism impacts your community.
2. Build for the 10th Anniversary of WTO-Seattle – November 27 – December 5.A decade has passed since the 1999 World Trade Organization Seattle Protests. How can AfDers who were in Seattle forget the November 30 march behind our banner with labor and turtles wearing our “Protest of the Century” ponchos.
National Days of Action are being planned in communities across the U.S. and the world commemorating 10 years of struggle for a better world. In Seattle, the People’s Summit Week of Action is from Nov. 27- Dec. 5 and at the Seattle plus 10 homepage scroll down on the right to “What’s Happening Elsewhere” for an event in your community or state.
To get started thinking about how you can mark the anniversary, view this brilliant, moving video, “Labor Battles the WTO: Seattle 1999”--a vision of united struggle against corporate and elite power, true then and true now.
Or compare the labor coverage with the Hollywoodized “Battle in Seattle” (2008) movie, which was still a huge improvement over the corporate media lies, government and police propaganda that distorted the message of Seattle. The Seattle WTO People’s History Project is a site where the people and the social movements “tell their own stories, reclaim their history, and publicly fight the damaging myths past and present.”
Candidates Obama and Clinton promised to re-examine the trade agreements, NAFTA and work for trade reform - have they? No! Have a gathering to discuss free vs fair trade and local impacts and state impacts. Order a DVD ($19.93 plus shipping) of the movie “Battle in Seattle” or rent from your local independent video store or library.
3. Learn about real Trade reform we can believe in - the 2009 TRADE ACT - H.R. 3012: The Trade, Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment Act ACT sponsored in Congress by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME)
We must “Be the change we want to be!” Educate, agitate and call (202-225-3121) your Senators and Representatives and ask him/her to cosponsor. Here is a Factsheet and the list of all current cosponsors.
Stop the Casino Economy, Invest in the Real Economy Help rebuild local economies by offering your input on GANE--the General Agreement on a New Economy--a document outlining a new model for economic development that emphasizes full employment, sustainable development, economic equity and community federalism.
GANE is a work-in-progress and its ultimate usefulness depends on you! Read it and share your ideas. Answers to our economic problems should come out of a broad public dialogue. Join in!
Community federalism is a systemic approach to development centered on the local community that builds outward to regional and national levels. It's a necessary and effective way of dealing with mounting and interrelated problems: climate change, off-shoring of jobs, the casino economy and degradation of the natural and social commons.
GANE, an Alliance for Democracy project, has been organized by Ruth Caplan, coordinator of AfD's program on Corporate Globalization and Positive Alternatives. It was developed by the Economics Working Group, while a project of the Tides Foundation, and is the result of a robust discussion among economists and policy advocates.
Honest and Clean Elections 1. Corporate Personhood and Freedom of Political Speech – “The Elephant in the Room.” Now is the time to build public awakening to the issue of corporate personhood and understanding of corporate claims to protections under the Bill of Rights. It is a time to discuss how to prevent the consequences or to remedy them should the Supreme Court rule, narrowly or broadly, to expand First Amendment rights to corporations allowing expenditures on behalf of political candidates.
Now’s the time to write letters to the editor explaining corporate personhood and the impact of money in politics, emphasize a local angle or issue. Link the amount your Senator or Representative has received from the healthcare industry, for example and his/her stand on Healthcare reform.
Here’s http://www.westernmassafsc.org/calendar/court908.html basic background on the issue. For more, view lawyers Jeffrey Clements and John Bonifaz discussing the Citizens United v. FEC case. Also read the NYTimes editorial “The Rights of Corporations” and “Sotomayor Issues Challenge to a Century of Corporate Law.”
2. Honest Elections How are votes cast and counted in your town, city or county? Will your vote count in 2010? Probably not, write Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman. If U.S. Attorney General Holder does not intervene to stop purchase by ES&S Corporation of Diebold Corporation’s voting machine division. With this purchase, ES&S would own 80% of America’s electronic voting machines and how the “power to shape America’s future with a few proprietary keystrokes.”
They conclude: As it’s done in numerous other countries throughout the world, the only realistic means by which the U.S. can establish a democratic system of ballot counting and casting is to do it the old-fashioned way. With human-scale checks and balances we might even be secure in the knowledge that our elections and vote counts truly reflect the will of the people. What a concept!
Start now to change the casting and counting of ballots in your community.
The latest on our regional meetings! If you don't see one near you, organize one! It doesn't have to be elaborate--if a potluck and discussion meets your local needs, that's fine. We can also suggest possible topics for speakers or films, and provide you with literature and in some cases dvds. For more information, contact afd@thealliancefordemocracy.org
October Oct. 6, Tuesday, Blue Hill, ME Blue Hill Public Library, 7:00 pm AfD national council member Bonnie Preston hosts panel on water with Emily Posner Defending Water for Life in Maine on bottled water; Sarah Bigney of Maine Fair Trade Campaign on trade and water; Antonio Blasi, a member of Maine Water Allies, active in eastern Hancock County, on ground water; and Nancye Files, of Alliance for Democracy Downeast.
Mid-October, Sacramento, CA, TBA AfD Defending Water for Life Campaign hosts with other co-sponsors the movie “Tapped” on bottled water. View trailer and Ruth Caplan here. Nestlé is coming to Sacramento and we’re fighting back!
Oct. 31, Saturday, Portland, OR First Unitarian Church, SW 12 and Salmon, Time TBA Watch AfD Portland website for details. Possible topics: election reform in OR and the nation; corporate personhood and corporate money in elections: Citizens United v. FEC; water privatization: Cascade Locks/Nestlé and bottled water-Bull Run reservoir and costly water treatment plants;
November Nov. 8, Sunday, Concord, Massachusetts Boston/Cambridge Alliance and North Bridge Alliance potluck focuses on corporate personhood and Citizens United v. FEC
Nov. 12, Thursday, Davis, CA Time/Place TBA: Potluck and discussion of the corporate voice vs. the people’s voice in local land-use development campaigns
Nov. 12, Thursday, Pittsfield or Rochester, NY Time/Place TBA: Local Potluck Dinner and discussion on “Do Corporations Rule the World?”
Nov. 14 -15, Sat-Sun, Ukiah, CA Bi-annual Convention of Northern California Alliance for Democracy “Rethinking Rights of Corporations in Northern California: What Can Local Communities Do Now?” Details coming!
The Boston/Cambridge Alliance's newsletter, The Dispatch, is out, with articles on the state of farms, Spokane's proposal to add a "Community Bill of Rights" to their city charter, the arts in Brazil and the coup in Honduras. There are reports on local projects on climate change and relocalization, and alerts for local and regional events. We have extra copies in the office; email afd@thealliancefordemocracy.org if you're interested!
A 200 page draft global agreement on climate change is under discussion in Bankok this week as officials from 190 countries gather for the last round of UN talks before Copenhagen.
The draft is online at the Guardian website, along with a "beginner's guide" to some of the major sticking points in negotiations between rich and developing/poor countries. The Guardian is also encouraging readers to comment on the draft in a wiki-like project to translate as much of its legalese and diplo-speak into plain English as possible.
The Guardian's post notes that observers are becoming pessimistic about the Copenhagen talks leading to the substantial emissions cuts necessary to forstall environmental disaster. One European official told the Guardian that once offsets, carbon credits, and other "fudges" are factored in, its unlikely that emissions in 2020 will be much lower than what they were in 1990, adding, "That's really scary stuff."
Nearly 2,000 people turned out Saturday for the free checkups, medical tests and minor procedures performed by 700 volunteers at the event hosted by television physician Dr. Mehmet Oz and the National Association of Free Clinics. Scenes from the clinic will be used in an October episode of The Dr. Oz Show.
Single payer activist Dr. Philip Caper, a member of Physicians for a National Health Program and AfD, speaks on the current state of health care reform with Jim Fisher on Common Health, a program focusing on public health in Maine, and broadcast on WERU-FM community radio.
Dr. Caper provides a quick but comprehensive list of what needs to be done to truly solve the healthcare crisis: provide affordable access, restructure compensation, and get ride of the "for profit culture" in our health care system.
ESS's purchase of Diebold's voting machine division gives one company with notorious ties to the GOP control of eighty percent of the votes cast on touchscreen machines. But that's merely the tip of a toxic iceberg.
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman. Posted on The Rag Blog September 24, 2009
Unless U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder intervenes, your electronic vote in 2010 will probably be owned by the Republican-connected ES&S Corporation. With 80% ownership of America's electronic voting machines, ES&S could have the power to shape America's future with a few proprietary keystrokes.
Critics of the merger hope Holder will rescind the purchase on anti-trust grounds.
But only a transparent system totally based on hand-counted paper ballots, with universal automatic voter registration, can get us even remotely close to a reliable vote count in the future.
For even if Holder does void this purchase, ES&S and Diebold in tandem will still control four of every five votes cast on touchscreen machines. As the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to open the floodgates on corporate campaign spending, the only difference could be that those who would buy our elections will have to write two checks instead of one.
And in fact, it's even worse than that. ES&S, Diebold and a tiny handful of sibling Republican voting equipment and computing companies control not only the touchscreen machines, but also the electronic tabulators that count millions of scantron ballots, AND the electronic polling books that decide who gets to vote and who doesn't.
Let's do a quick review:
1. ES&S, Diebold and other companies tied to election hardware and software are owned and operated by a handful of very wealthy conservatives, or right-to-life ideologues, with long-standing direct ties to the Republican Party;
2. As votes will be increasingly cast on optiscans, touchscreens or computer voting machines in the United States in 2010, the scant few so-called paper trail mechanisms that are in place will offer little security against electronic vote theft;
3. The source code on all U.S. touchscreen machines now used for the casting and counting of ballots is proprietary, meaning the companies that own and operate the machines -- including ES&S -- are not required to share with the public the details of how those machines actually work;
4. Although there are official mechanisms for monitoring and recounts, none carry any real weight in the face of the public's inability to gain control or even access to this electronic source code, whose proprietary standing has been upheld by the courts;
5. With the newly merged ES&S/Diebold now apparently controlling 80% of the national vote through hardware and software, this GOP-connected corporation will have the power to alter virtually every election in the U.S. with a few keystrokes. Unless there is a massive, successful grassroots campaign between now and 2012, the same will hold true for the next US presidential election;
6. Aside from its control of touchscreen machines, the merged Diebold/ES&S also controls a significant percent of the electronic optiscan tabulators to count cards on which voters use pencils to fill in circles, indicating their vote. Accounts of fraud, rigging, theft and abuse of these optiscan systems are well-documented and innumerable. Any corporation that prints these ballots and runs the machines designated to count them can control yet another major piece of the US vote count;
7. The merged ES&S/Diebold now also controls the electronic voter registration systems in many counties and states. With that control comes the ability to remove registered voters without significant public accountability. In the 2004 election, nearly 25% of all the registered voters in the Democratic-rich city of Cleveland were purged, including 10,000 voters erased "accidentally" by a Diebold electronic pollbook system. So in addition to controlling the vote counts on touchscreen and optiscan voting machines, the merged Diebold/ES&S and sympathetic hardware and software companies that service computerized voting equipment will control who actually gets to cast a vote in the first place.
Lest we forget: in 2000, long before this ES&S/Diebold purchase was proposed, Choicepoint, a GOP-controlled data management firm, hired by Florida’s Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris, removed up to 150,000 Florida citizens from voter rolls on the pretense that they were ex-felons. The vast majority of them were not.
Computer software "disappeared" 16,000 votes from Al Gore's column at a critical moment on election night, allowing George W. Bush’s first cousin John Ellis, a Fox News analyst, to proclaim him the winner. The election was officially decided by less than 700 votes and a 5-4 Supreme Court vote preventing a full recount. An independent audit later showed Gore was the rightful winner.
In 2004, more than 300,000 Ohio citizens were removed from voter rolls by GOP-controlled county election boards (more than one million have been removed since).
Various dirty tricks prevented still tens of thousands more Ohioans from voting. The vote count was marred by a wide range of official manipulations coordinated by then-Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.
Diebold was a major player in the 2004 Ohio elections, but was joined by numerous other computer voting firms and their technicians in "recounting the vote" which confirmed the Bush "victory," despite exit poll results and other evidence to the contrary. In defiance of a federal court order, 56 of 88 Ohio counties destroyed some or all of their ballots or election records. No one has been prosecuted.
In short, the ES&S purchase of Diebold's voting machine operation is merely the tip of a toxic iceberg. Voiding the merger will do nothing to solve the REAL problem, which is an electronic-based system of voter registration and ballot counting that is potentially controlled by private corporations and contractors whose agenda is to make large profits and protect the system that guarantees them.
Although elections based on universal automatic registration and hand-counted paper ballots are not foolproof, they constitute a start. Stealing an election by stuffing paper ballot boxes at the "retail" level is far more difficult than stealing votes at the "wholesale" level with an electronic flip of a switch.
As it's done in numerous other countries throughout the world, the only realistic means by which the U.S. can establish a democratic system of ballot casting and counting is to do it the old-fashioned way. With human-scale checks and balances we might even be secure in the knowledge that our elections and vote counts will truly reflect the will of the people. What a concept!
Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman have co-authored four books on election protection, available at freepress.org at, where this article also appears, and where Bob's Fitrakis Files are also available. Harvey Wasserman's History of the U.S. is at harveywasserman.com.Read more...
Call and/or fax Gov. Schwarzenegger and ask him to support the California Human Right to Water Act of 2009 and sign AB 1242 (Ruskin). This bill would be an important first in this country, and mirrors the international movement to ensure the human right to water for all.
The Alliance for Democracy is a Co-Sponsor of this bill, along with seven other national, state or local community organizations, because we believe the time has come to enact this state policy to ensure that all Californians have access to safe and affordable water. We can no longer allow state residents to drink unsafe water. Contamination by excessive amounts of nitrates, pesticides, and industrial chemicals is well-documented.
Call the Governor at his Sacramento office: 916-445-2841. If this number is busy, call the district office nearest you: in LA: 213-897-0322, San Diego: 619-525-4641 and San Francisco: 415-703-2218. Or you can download and print out this letter and fax it to 916-558-3160.
The Basic Facts: More than 11.5 million Californians rely on water suppliers that faced at least one violation of state drinking water standards. As many as 8.5 million rely on supplies with five violations in a single year. More than 150,000 lack safe water for personal use. In far too many communities, whose sole water supply is contaminated, families unable to afford water treatment are often left entirely without safe water. Even more have water disconnected because they cannot afford to pay their water bill. The Central Valley and Central Coast regions, where more than 90% of the communities rely on groundwater alone, are at particular risk.
Though bottled water can be used, it is not economical. Families can pay up to 1,000 times more for bottled over tap water, and may forgo other necessities to pay for it. It is also impractical for all uses, leaving families to cook, wash dishes, and bathe their children in water they know makes them sick. Additionally, plastic bottles add unnecessarily to California's waste stream.
Take action today. Help make California the first state to set the example that access to safe and affordable water is a human right. Thank you for your quick action!
The bakesale option: Rep. Eric Cantor says nothing meaningful at all on what to do if you're middle-class, uninsured and seriously ill--write-up here.
Why so many Americans are limited to the bakesale option, c/o Senator Bernie Sanders, with a warning on public policy, big money, and Citizens United v. FEC.
More satire, pro-public option but otherwise dead-on, c/o FunnyorDie.com, and featuring Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, and others, produced by MoveOn.org.
Laugh all you want, but make the call for HR 676 and the Weiner amendment.
This insipid post to the New York Times Prescriptions blog on Friday would have been stronger if the discussion of single payer actually included--wait for it--an advocate for single payer!
Clark Hoyt is the New York Times public editor (aka the guy who takes complaints). Please call at 212-556-7652, or email public@nytimes.com to express disapproval of Prescription's one-sided coverage of the viability of a single payer system.
The nation's founders were suspicious of the role that corporations could play in public life, as are many of us today. The New York Times tells the Supreme Court to follow the founders' lead as they decide--wide or narrow--on Citizens United v. FEC.
The question at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court cases this year is simple: What constitutional rights should corporations have? To us, as well as many legal scholars, former justices and, indeed, drafters of the Constitution, the answer is that their rights should be quite limited — far less than those of people.
This Supreme Court, the John Roberts court, seems to be having trouble with that. It has been on a campaign to increase corporations’ legal rights — based on the conviction of some conservative justices that businesses are, at least legally, not much different than people.
Now the court is considering what should be a fairly narrow campaign finance case, involving whether Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had the right to air a slashing movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton during the Democratic primary season. There is a real danger that the case will expand corporations’ rights in ways that would undermine the election system.
The legal doctrine underlying this debate is known as “corporate personhood.”
The courts have long treated corporations as persons in limited ways for some legal purposes. They may own property and have limited rights to free speech. They can sue and be sued. They have the right to enter into contracts and advertise their products. But corporations cannot and should not be allowed to vote, run for office or bear arms. Since 1907, Congress has banned them from contributing to federal political campaigns — a ban the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld.
In an exchange this month with Chief Justice Roberts, the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, argued against expanding that narrowly defined personhood. "Few of us are only our economic interests," she said. "We have beliefs. We have convictions." Corporations, "engage the political process in an entirely different way, and this is what makes them so much more damaging," she said.
Chief Justice Roberts disagreed: "A large corporation, just like an individual, has many diverse interests." Justice Antonin Scalia said most corporations are "indistinguishable from the individual who owns them."
The Constitution mentions the rights of the people frequently but does not cite corporations. Indeed, many of the founders were skeptical of corporate influence.
John Marshall, the nation’s greatest chief justice, saw a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible," he wrote in 1819. "Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence."
That does not mean that corporations should have no rights. It is in society’s interest that they are allowed to speak about their products and policies and that they are able to go to court when another company steals their patents. It makes sense that they can be sued, as a person would be, when they pollute or violate labor laws.
The law also gives corporations special legal status: limited liability, special rules for the accumulation of assets and the ability to live forever. These rules put corporations in a privileged position in producing profits and aggregating wealth. Their influence would be overwhelming with the full array of rights that people have.
One of the main areas where corporations' rights have long been limited is politics. Polls suggest that Americans are worried about the influence that corporations already have with elected officials. The drive to give corporations more rights is coming from the court's conservative bloc — a curious position given their often-proclaimed devotion to the text of the Constitution.
The founders of this nation knew just what they were doing when they drew a line between legally created economic entities and living, breathing human beings. The court should stick to that line.Read more...
The latest installment of the Corporations and Democracy radio show explores the current status of health care reform. Download or listen to the .mp3 here. This week, Dr. John Geyman, past president of Physicians for a National Healthcare Program, offers his assessment of pending legislation, the public option, and single payer. Dr. Geyman is professor emeritus of family medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle and author of several books, including Do Not Resuscitate: Why the Health Insurance Industry is Dying and How We Must Replace It, and The Corrosion of Medicine: Can the Profession Reclaim its Moral Legacy? He also blogs at the PNHP site. Toni Rizzo conducts the interview, with call-ins from listeners.
Public funding for elections is not a dead issue. Two bills, described below, in the House and Senate, have a total of 91 co-sponsors, more than HR 676. This email from Granny D details what you can do to build support for them. The Senate bill details are here, the House bill here.
Dear Friend:
In September the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. will try again to decide if corporations are persons and, if so, would have all the rights of a person; and could send as much cash as they consider effective to candidates running for office. I hope they decide against changing our laws forbidding corporations from using their huge treasuries to influence the outcome of elections.
Americans for Campaign Reform have two bills known as the Fair Elections Now Act. "What has that to do with me?" you may ask. Sometime in the past ten years you sent me, Granny D, your email, along with a donation or a get-well card, or signed a list and I am using your email to write to you because you said or inferred that you would help me when the time came and you could do so.
Now I am cashing in my chips! Would you be so kind as to make two telephone calls of singular importance for me? The numbers are: 1-877-851-6437 or 1-800-828-0498. Both are for the Capitol. The first call you would make, were you to accept my humble request, you would ask for the office of your Senator, and the second call you would ask for the office of your House Representative.
Leave a message for whom you called if he/she is not available. If he/she or a trusted employee answers, please use your own words saying something like this: "I would like the Senator (or Representative) to know that I do not believe that a Corporation is a person. I would like him/her to co-sponsor the Senate (or House) bill known as the Fair Elections Now Act, HR 1826 for the House and SB 752 for the Senate."
If either is already a co-sponsor (as NH representatives Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes are), thank him/her for being one. If not say, "Please consider being a co-sponsor because I am sure you would like to please me and many of your other constituents."
Yours sincerely,
Doris Granny D Haddock PS Please send this to people you know.
From his email, condensed: David Rovics has twenty one new songs & poems on his website. You can download them for free but if you're more than a leech you'll also buy a cd, send a donation, let friends know how good the new stuff is, organize a show--house concert or larger, etc., recommend them to a local radio station, etc. Check out the songs and then do (at the least) a little grassroots pr.
In June I reported on the campaign underway in Mendocino County, California, between one of the nation’s largest real estate investment trusts, Developers Diversified Realty ("DDR"), and the local community over an initiative on the November 3rd ballot. If passed, the measure would rezone a closed industrial plant site that DDR bought a few years ago, just outside the City of Ukiah, from industrial to commercial zoning so it could build the County’s first large shopping mall.
The developer and its local front groups, "Mendocino County Tomorrow" and "Yes on Measure A, Citizens to bring jobs, tax dollars and local shopping to Mendocino County—A coalition being led by Mendocino County Tomorrow with major funding by DDR DB Mendocino LP" (honest – that’s their full name; see if you can say it three times quickly!) have spent $297K through June on campaign activities to reach a total of 49,000 voters in the County. And all of that funding has come from DDR; not a penny has come from any county resident. The community opposition, Save Our Local Economy ("SOLE"), has spent a whole $654 through June, all from small local donations. Both campaigns have spent more since June but we won’t know how much until next month.
Each side is campaigning with a fundamentally different method. The developer is funding telephone calls (from outside the State) to voters. Their first mailer went to voters in August and touted the same allegations they’ve been saying for years – keep sales tax revenue local, create jobs, and shop locally. In recent weeks they’ve been paying some of the local unemployed to go door-to-door to deliver another flier.
On the other hand, volunteers for SOLE have been soliciting the public for endorsements and more volunteers one-on-one at public events and stores over the summer. Their number of volunteers is now in the hundreds and endorsers are several time that. Funding is still slim so they’re busy these days hand assembling their first mailer to reach voters. The developer’s sponsored web sites are www.VoteYesOnMeasureA.com, www.mendocinocountytomorrow.com and www.mendocinocrossings.com. SOLE’s site has changed since the June article to www.NoOnA.com.
The result of the election will determine the future of the retail economy and general character of the rural Ukiah Valley in Mendocino County, two hours drive north of San Francisco. Will the local retail economy, characterized by one quaint downtown and several strip malls scattered throughout the City and just outside its borders, be decimated by a new mega-mall a half mile outside of town? I’ll have the answer in November.
Imagine a country where every eleven minutes, a person dies from lack of access to health care. Must be a pretty tough place, right? Entrenched poverty, lack of opportunity, and probably run by an elite who are not too concerned about the people.
Well, America, take a look out the window, because you're living there, according to a study forthcoming in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Public Health, which ties lack of insurance to the deaths of approximately 44,789 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 each year. The paper is available at the Physicians for a National Health Program site, and was authored by Andrew P. Wilper MD MPH, Steffie Woolhandler MD MPH, Karen E. Lasser MD MPH, Danny McCormick MD MPH, David H. Bor MD, and David U. Himmelstein MD.
Their paper notes that many previous studies have found a link between uninsurance and mortality. Most recently an Institute of Medicine study that estimated some 18,000 people a year between the ages of 25 and 64 who die annually because of lack of insurance, which is the number that most often comes up on the left. But the 18,000 figure was based on data from a study now more than 20 years old, and both medicine and demographics have changed since then.
Demographically, uninsured individuals have had a harder time finding care, as financial support for public hospitals has withered. These institutions provided a resource for the treatment of chronic conditions, and while treatment options for many diseases have improved in the past two decades, its the insured who can take advantage of them.
At this point, we ask why, if there is such a demonstrable link between lack of access to care and unnecessary death, what kind of person would not want to institute a health care system where "everybody's in, nobody's out"? The answer: a corporate person, the kind that's able to influence-peddle the decision makers, but who has no concern whatsoever for human life. And to the extent that real people--pundits, politicians, executives and citizens--resemble the corporations they work for, they're just as implicit in these unnecessary deaths.
A companion piece to Mr. Colbert's succinct commentary on the cruel limitations currently placed on the corporate person's right to ladle cash over their chosen representatives in Washington and beyond. Warning: the third to last paragraph of this piece contains a statement that may drive certain individuals' blood pressure to dangerous levels.
In her maiden Supreme Court appearance last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a provocative comment that probed the foundations of corporate law.
During arguments in a campaign-finance case, the court's majority conservatives seemed persuaded that corporations have broad First Amendment rights and that recent precedents upholding limits on corporate political spending should be overruled.
But Justice Sotomayor suggested the majority might have it all wrong -- and that instead the court should reconsider the 19th century rulings that first afforded corporations the same rights flesh-and-blood people have.
Judges "created corporations as persons, gave birth to corporations as persons," she said. "There could be an argument made that that was the court's error to start with...[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics."
After a confirmation process that revealed little of her legal philosophy, the remark offered an early hint of the direction Justice Sotomayor might want to take the court.
"Progressives who think that corporations already have an unduly large influence on policy in the United States have to feel reassured that this was one of [her] first questions," said Douglas Kendall, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.
"I don't want to draw too much from one comment," says Todd Gaziano, director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. But it "doesn't give me a lot of confidence that she respects the corporate form and the type of rights that it should be afforded."
For centuries, corporations have been considered beings apart from their human owners, yet sharing with them some attributes, such as the right to make contracts and own property. Originally, corporations were a relatively rare form of organization. The government granted charters to corporations, delineating their specific functions. Their powers were presumed limited to those their charter spelled out.
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible," Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in an 1819 case. "It possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it."
But as the Industrial Revolution took hold, corporations proliferated and views of their functions began to evolve.
In an 1886 tax dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state of California, the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because "we are all of opinion that it does."
That seemingly off-hand comment reflected an "impulse to shield business activity from certain government regulation," says David Millon, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.
"A positive way to put it is that the economy is booming, American production is leading the world and the courts want to promote that," Mr. Millon says. Less charitably, "it's all about protecting corporate wealth" from taxes, regulations or other legislative initiatives.
Subsequent opinions expanded corporate rights. In 1928, the court struck down a Pennsylvania tax on transportation corporations because individual taxicab drivers were exempt. Corporations get "the same protection of equal laws that natural persons" have, Justice Pierce Butler wrote.
From the mid-20th century, though, the court has vacillated on how far corporate rights extend. In a 1973 case before a more liberal court, Justice William O. Douglas rejected the Butler opinion as "a relic" that overstepped "the narrow confines of judicial review" by second-guessing the legislature's decision to tax corporations differently than individuals.
Today, it's "just complete confusion" over which rights corporations can claim, says Prof. William Simon of Columbia Law School.
Even conservatives sometimes have been skeptical of corporate rights. Then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist dissented in 1979 from a decision voiding Massachusetts's restriction of corporate political spending on referendums. Since corporations receive special legal and tax benefits, "it might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere," he wrote.
On today's court, the direction Justice Sotomayor suggested is unlikely to prevail. During arguments, the court's conservative justices seem to view corporate political spending as beneficial to the democratic process. "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election," Justice Anthony Kennedy said during arguments last week.
But Justice Sotomayor may have found a like mind in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," Justice Ginsburg said, evoking the Declaration of Independence.
How far Justice Sotomayor pursues the theme could become clearer when the campaign-finance decision is delivered, probably by year's end.Read more...
Health insurance has been a bargaining table perk for a long time. It's great to see a group of people who've fought for their own coverage turn around and fight for the millions of people without. What a contrast to the "I've got mine, you drop dead" attitude on the other side of the debate! The press release is from the Labor Campaign for Single Payer.
In a unanimous vote, the AFL-CIO yesterday endorsed the Single Payer Medicare for All approach to healthcare reform as the "most cost-effective and equitable way to provide quality healthcare for all." The resolution caps a successful effort led by the Labor Campaign for Single Payer (LCSP), the Labor Caucus for HR 676 (a coalition of national unions) and the All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care to put the Federation on record rejecting private insurance and in support of a social insurance model for healthcare reform.
Over 70 resolutions were submitted to the Convention on this subject--more than on any other single issue in the history of the AFL-CIO. Submissions came from a diverse range of labor organizations including 5 national unions, 7 state labor federations and over 60 central labor councils. Yesterday's Convention actions came as a direct result of the mobilization efforts of hundreds of labor bodies, state federations, central labor councils and local unions.
The resolution passed shortly after President Obama addressed the Convention. The Convention also passed a resolution that set conditions for support of the main legislative proposals before the House and Senate but delegates were unanimous in their agreement that the private insurance industry was the biggest roadblock to real healthcare reform.
"We've had debate within our own movement," said United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard, who chaired the discussion,"But what unites us is greater than what divides us."
The single payer resolution charts a clear course for the future by stating that, "Whatever the outcome of the current debate over health care reform in the 111th Congress, the task of establishing health care as a human right, not a privilege, will still lay before us." It supports current single payer legislation including the HR 676 Medicare for All legislation introduced by Congressman John Conyers.
Yesterday's vote capped several days of enthusiastic organizing at the Convention. Many delegates wore stickers and buttons in support of single payer. On Monday night, hundreds of delegates attended a reception sponsored by the LCSP and the Labor Caucus. Several national union presidents spoke at the gathering including USW President Leo Gerard and Mineworkers President Cecil Roberts. LCSP Board Members Donna Dewitt,President of the South Carolina AFL-CIO, and Jos Williams, President of the DC Metro Labor Council also spoke. CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro introduced special guest Michael Moore. After the reception, over 1,000 delegates and guests marched through Pittsburgh to a movie theater to watch the U.S. premiere of Moore's new film, "Capitalism, A Love Story".
Twelve delegates gave impassioned speeches in favor of the Single Payer Resolution. IFPTE President Greg Junemann stressed that the resolution reflects the "realities of tomorrow". "We will not rest," he said, "until we have healthcare for all Americans." Clyde Rivers of CSEA spoke of the incredible burden that the costs of the private insurance system places on the backs of public workers in California and elsewhere and of the cost savings that could be achieved through single payer. Jeff Crosby, President of the North Shore (MA) Labor Council said that he was proud that the Federation will assume "moral leadership" of the movement for healthcare for all and of how important that leadership is for our allies in the community.
South Carolina State Federation President urged delegates to support the Weiner amendment which is due to come up for debate in Congress. Rose Ann DeMoro expressed hope on behalf of all nurses that, by the next AFL-CIO Convention, the establishment of single-payer in the U. S. will have moved the country's international healthcare ranking "from a deplorable 37th into the top 10."
"This resolution is an extraordinary achievement," said LCSP National Coordinator Mark Dudzic. "Its passage was made possible by the powerful organizing efforts of grassroots labor activists around the country. Now our job is go back to our communities, build the campaign and take the fight to the halls of Congress."
Good news: a state appellate court in Indiana has struck down a law requiring voters to show identification at the polls there.
The voter id law was declared constitutional last year by the US Supreme Court, but was re-heard at the appellate level according to the Indiana Constitution. The appellate court ruled that the law was in violation of the state's version of the federal Equal Protection clause because it didn't require mail-in voters or some nursing home residents to show IDs, thereby holding one group of voters to a less-stringent standard of identification.
Indiana state officials said they would appeal to the State Supreme Court, but voting rights activists and legal scholars welcomed the decision. Speaking to the New York Times, Daniel P. Tokaji, an associate law professor at Ohio State University, said the Indiana Constitution is more protective of voting rights than the federal, and suggested that the appellate judges did not believe that the purpose of the law, passed by Republican legislators, was control of voter fraud.
Tova Andrea Wang, of Demos, noted these laws "particularly disenfranchise the elderly, people of color, the poor, people with disabilities and students," all traditionally Democratic voters. She called the idea that id laws are necessary for election integrity "a total canard."
This episode of the Colbert Report is apparently being repeated this evening (check local listings...) Meanwhile, here's a funny, and also kind of sad, bit from the show.
From our friends at the Massachusetts group, Citizens for Voter Choice, who are organizing a petition drive to get a referendum on Instant Runoff Voting on the November ballot. Please forward!
Job Posting--Campaign Manager The Massachusetts Voter Choice ballot referendum campaign is looking for a full time campaign manager to begin immediately. The Voter Choice referendum seeks to enact a system of ranked choice (or "Instant Runoff") voting in Massachusetts. This will empower voters with more voices and choices in elections, put missing solutions back on the agenda and eliminate the fear of "spoilers" taking votes away from other candidates. In general, it is a key reform to help build the democracy we urgently need to start solving all the other critical, growing problems.
The organizer will oversee the collection of 100,000 signatures between Sept. 11 and Nov. 18, in order to put the question on the Nov. 2010 ballot. Responsibilities include volunteer recruitment, organizing, database, media and communications in person, by phone, email and website. Experience with organizing statewide grassroots campaigns and petition initiatives is useful. For information on the Voter Choice campaign, see below, or go to www.voterchoicema.org .
If you are interested in the position, please contact us and send a resume to info@voterchoiceMA.org.
Facebook's "Call on President Obama to Meet with the Mad As Hell Doctors" group (900+ members) has a new mission: to get the doctors on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. They're asking people to call and/or email the show's producers--calls pack more punch--or contact the show through Facebook. Contact info for the show, many links for the Doctors and a sample letter at the Read more link.
I’m writing to suggest that ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’ host the awesome history-making ‘Mad As Hell Doctors’ and here’s why:
The Mad as Hell Doctors are a small group of heroic Oregon physicians who have decided to revive the all-but-defunct darling of hardcore health care reformers: single-payer medical coverage. The doctors are currently in the middle of a massive cross-country road trip where they will make stops in 24 cities. At each stop they are hosting (peaceful and intelligent) educational Single Payer Town Hall Meetings. They will roll into Washington, DC on September 30 where they hope to meet with President Obama.
In fact, although the doctors have made a formal request to meet with President Obama, he has refused. President Obama’s refusal to meet is not stopping the doctors and the Single Payer supporters!
Recently the White House was so overwhelmed with requests for President Obama to meet with the doctors that the White House contacted the Mad As Hell doctors and asked them to ask their supporters to cease contacting the White House. The doctors refused and let the White House know that the requests will stop when President Obama agrees to meet with them!
Adam Klugman, Mad As Hell doctors media consultant has created a sophisticated web http://www.facebook.com/l/19db0;site:www.madashelldoctors.com Klugman, an advertising industry veteran, coined the name Mad As Hell Doctors -- a moniker the Oregon physicians rejected at first.
When the doctors first heard the group name suggestion they rejected it saying, 'Nah, not us, we're not that mad’ until they realized that they really are!
The Mad as Hell Doctors believe that as doctors, they are the best-positioned people to talk about health care reform since they're the link between the patients and the insurance companies.
The doctors have been blogging from the road and post daily video updates to web sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
As you are sure to recognize, the Mad As Hell Doctors would be phenomenal guests on your program!
You’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain by having these incredible, history-making, brazen, intelligent, tireless doctors on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart!
An upcoming article from the Boston/Cambridge Alliance chapter's Dispatch newsletter focuses on the potential for revising home rule regulation in Massachusetts, sparked by a petition to the state legislature filed by one town seeking to impose stricter regulations on a local piggery. by Dave Lewit
Pigs—good. Pig poop—bad. At least when concentrated in a tank beneath a megabarn housing 1000 hogs being fed for market. And later much of the foul goo is sprayed onto fields and plowed. “Unbearable” odor for people breathing the air within a mile or two.
That’s the situation in an around Tewksbury, Massachusetts, a town of 30,000 upwind of I-93 between Boston and Lowell. I haven’t smelled anything like that since I was a kid in New Jersey, motoring with windows shut tight past Secaucus where pigs were fed garbage from New York City restaurants. (Secaucus has since been cleaned up and gentrified.) Sometimes kids in Tewksbury gasp and even vomit when leaving the school bus, and have refused to go outside for recess. Adults too stay indoors much of the time, instead of mixing with neighbors.
This has been going on since 2005, when Krochmal Farms—a local piggery with some cattle and a petting zoo and hayrides—went industrial, building a “finishing facility” for handling pigs more efficiently. Nearby suburbanites rebelled and drafted a Home Rule Petition to get the state legislature’s permission to strictly regulate the conditions on the two piggeries within town limits. At a special town meeting, the petition passed easily.
On 1 September the State House’s A-2 hearing room was totally packed, with an additional 30 people standing in back, listening to testimony for three hours. Other Alliance for Democracy people and I had heard of the Tewksbury matter only a few days before. We had spoken on the phone with David Powers, a leader of the revolt and producer of www.TewskburyOdor.org, and two of us were there to observe.
Deeper than Tewksbury Why should the Alliance care at all? Because the issue of Home Rule is fundamental to localization in Massachusetts and many other states. And because the Alliance is dedicated to going beyond regulation to the banning of corporations (organizations, enterprises) which disrespect citizen rights, town rights, and the rights of nature (environment). If we are going to change the system of corporate domination, here may be a key issue. Tewksbury’s townsfolk, supported by state representative James Miceli and petition-writer Michelle Walsh, are farm-friendly, but pollution-averse. How to protect their children’s health? How to protect the air they breathe and maybe even the well water they drink? State regulation of farming is weak both in standards and enforcement. But town select boards and boards of health are limited in what they can do by the state government’s insistence on equal treatment (regardless of inherent inequalities) of all townships across the commonwealth, and on constitutional claims to protect “agricultural” as well as “mineral, forest, water, air and other natural resources” as “rights” (Amendment 97).
The petition, running seven pages, demands annual permits for pig-raising, with requirements about facilities and monitoring. While supporters bitterly complained about what amounts to assault from ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and other pig-waste by-products, Krochmal Farms’ owners and Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation officers claimed to be defending “family farms” and ensuring our food security. They complained that nearby home-owners were intruders (not old-time residents) who knew that they were moving in next to normally-smelly farms, and that they were trying to drive pig farmers out of business.
From a systemic point of view, these are surface concerns. Everyone seems to want direct communication among residents and farmers and town officials, but Krochmal owners seem reluctant, and Farm Bureau leaders seem to resent impediments to “progress”—conversion to Iowa-style factory farming with expensive odor abatement equipment like what Krochmal recently installed after three years of stench and complaints. The odor has abated some, but is still offensive and probably unhealthy.
On the other hand, it was easy for two of us to talk with Greg Cave, a member of the farm family, who gave us an overview with all the details we asked about, and more, when we drove up to the farm six days after the hearing. Greg’s grandfather bought the farm in 1941 and eventually had 5000 pigs rooting and roaming about the countryside. Now surrounding pastures have given way to suburban homes, whose occupants experienced a sudden intensification of foul odor in 2005 when Krochmal converted from wooden pigpens to their massive finishing facility.
Of particular interest was the lack of a direct connection with any large corporation. Krochmal Farms has its own large truck which takes 100 hogs at a time to the livestock auction in New Holland, Pennsylvania, where they are sold to the highest bidder which may be a corporate meat packer, but without prior contract. At the starting end nine months earlier, Krochmal breeds and maintains ownership of its pigs.
The Big Issues Where can a factory farm operation fit into the larger picture of agriculture in Massachusetts or New England?
Despite picturesque Vermont farms, New England produces only a small percentage of its food. Part of this is due not just to a relatively short growing season but to loss of farms because of the cost of labor and materials, compared with costs on tropical plantations dictated by supermarket chains, or mass handling of livestock in the South and Midwest—both with heavy damage to the environment. Part is due to year ‘round demand for meat like that for orange juice and lettuce. Part is due to unexpected price shifts as for milk, which has closed many Northeast farms. Part is due to (formerly) cheap fuel for shipping in food from thousands of miles away. But as food prices have climbed, and as contaminated food has become more common, so locally grown food, without insecticides or hormones or preservatives, has become more popular. Urban agriculture has begun—on lots, greenhouses, and rooftops. As world climate, soil, water conditions, and ocean fisheries deteriorate world-wide, New Englanders will have to become regionally more self-reliant, more seasonal in tastes, and simpler (or more creative) in eating habits—including much less pork and beef. Food Security is needed—all in a decade or two—and we will be the healthier for it.
But wouldn’t a mass pig operation like Krochmal’s be perfect for New England ham, bacon, and pork lovers? Not if their meat is processed and sold outside of the region. Selling Massachusetts hogs in Pennsylvania is not local production for local consumption. (The Alliance may want to help research corporate involvement in the Tewksbury matter, for example, the role of the Farm Bureau Federation. To volunteer, call Dispatch editor or Alliance coordinator at 781-894-1179.)
So what about government involvement? The US Department of Agriculture has long since sold out to giant corporations and fosters unsustainable and environmentally damaging mass production for profit, as well as destruction of peasant farming in Latin America and Africa as part of US imperial policy. (The Alliance has been working for years to replace NAFTA and WTO with a democratic world trade system—google “Common Agreement on Investment and Society”. Also, volunteer to help with our globalization impact bill to establish a Massachusetts citizen trade commission—call Dispatch editor or Alliance coordinator at 781-894-1179.)
At the state level the departments of Public Health, Agricultural Resources, and Environmental Protection appear to be hamstrung or corporate-dominated. Standards, oversight, regulation, and enforcement are weak. Coordination with regional and local agencies is problematic.
Home Rule may be a key to change. Following a recent hearing I spoke with chairman Senator Jamie Eldridge of the Joint Committee on Municipalities & Regional Government. He said that the committee plans to rethink Home Rule, with an eye toward more distributed power. Now may be a great opportunity for the Alliance and sister groups to become involved for systemic change—horizontal communication, less hierarchy and logjams, local funding for consultants, maybe even participatory budgeting! Happily, the senate vice-chair is Pat Jehlen, another liberal.
At present, a substitute bill---much shorter and more sophisticated—might be enacted as an ordinance by Tewksbury or neighboring Wilmington town meeting, modeled after water protection measures taken in Barnstead NH, Shapleigh ME, and other places, sparked by Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (www.CELDF.org) and driven by Alliance for Democracy organizers and educators (www.TheAllianceForDemocracy.org). Such an ordinance, possibly leading to a town charter change, would exclude factory farm operations within town limits (though sustainable farming, including organic, would continue) based on regional food security and rights to health and rights of nature. Without citing rights, conservative townships in central Pennsylvania have warded off external corporate threats by passing such ordinances.
Yes, there will be conflict with corporations which have designs on town resources as well as with factory-minded farmers. Legislators concerned with Home Rule will weigh in with possibly very progressive changes in state law. It may also stimulate thinking and planning between towns and states in New England about regional agriculture sufficiency, public banking for sustainable enterprise, and regional economic integration.
Readers: Please identify friendly spirits on this committee! Committee on Municipalities & Regional Government Senators:
Eldridge of Middlesex and Worcester (Chair) 617-722-1120
Jehlen of Second Middlesex (Vice-Chair) 617-722-1578
Fargo of Third Middlesex 617-722-1572
Galluccio of Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex 617-722-1650
Kennedy of Second Plymouth and Bristol 617-722-1200
We are not partisan--both sides feed at the same trough--but here's some faulty thinking popularly associated with one side of the aisle. It always helps your argument to get the math and the dates straight. Hat tip to Colonel Colin J. N. Chauret, USAF Ret., of Texas:
RE: Republican's "Tea Party March" Reference this weekend's Washington DC "Tea Party March" by Republicans concerned with Obama's deficit spending. What a short memory they have. The 8 years George W. Bush was in office equates to only 3.4% of our nation's history of 232 years, while his deficit spending of $4.9 trillion equates to 46.2% of the total debt when he left office of $10.6 trillion. Where were the Republican's marches then? And, this does not include the $712 billion of TARP money, bank bailout money, Bush signed into legislation the last few days in office, which is now showing up in Obama's deficit spending.
There's a nice point-by-point rebuttal to the John Mackey op-ed that sparked the Whole Foods boycott on the Dollars & Sense blog, here. The author's Joel A. Harrison, who has previously written for the magazine on privatization of profit and socialization of cost in US health care delivery.
As an aside, Michael Pollan has come out against the boycott, as both Dollars & Sense and boycott organizers Single Payer Action note. In a note on the conservative New Majority (really?) site, he posits Whole Foods as part of "an alternative food system," based on support for farmers and better-quality food more sustainably grown, and adds that when, thanks to health care reform, insurers can no longer cherrypick the healthiest individuals they will have a stake in changing the food system to emphasize "prevention, which is to say, in changing the way America feeds itself." Why this hasn't happened already, given that even if you can legally snag the healthiest customers and shed the sickest, you should also have a stake in keeping the fit fit, Pollan doesn't say.
On Tuesday, September 8, Shays2 and POCLAD hosted a discussion of the Citizens United v. FEC case--arguments were heard by the Supreme Court yesterday. A decision has the potential to overturn previous precedent on campaign finance, particularly restrictions on donations to candidates by corporations. A question raised by the case, in light of the enormous power that major for-profit corporations and industries already wield over policy development, is whether we need to formally amend the Constitution to legally define personhood. In the meantime, we need to be able to defend why free speech rights should not extend to corporations, and the speakers here offer some great legal history surrounding the usurpation of personhood rights in order to further political ends.
Participating were John Bonifaz, legal director of Voter Action and former Democratic candidate for Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth; Jeffrey Clements, the attorney who filed an Amicus brief representing five citizens groups arguing against expanding corporate First Amendment Rights; Ward Morehouse, co-founder of POCLAD; and Carolyn Toll Oppenheim, co-founder of Shays2: Western Mass Committee on Corporations and Democracy (whose website has a good summary of the case and the issue of expanding free speech to corporations).
Here's Jeffrey Clements:
And Jon Bonifaz:
The court, Bonifaz says, could settle the case in a lot of ways that doesn't "drive it over the cliff," but if it overturns precedent and allows much broader and more obvious legal interference in elections by corporations, the court could "radically reshape our politics and the way we conduct business in the political process."
As the Supreme Court takes up campaign finance, this essay proposes a fix that's not just for peace workers--Lopez's simple proposal would help tip the scales in favor of constituents on every issue where money distorts debate.
by: Ralph Lopez, posted on Truthout on September 4
As public opinion tips against the US military presence in Afghanistan, and Congress talks about "doubling down," as the pullout from Iraq is accompanied by steadily increasing violence, and talk turns to slowing or halting the pull-out, the question the anti-war public must ask itself is: What now? War funding for Iraq continues despite two consecutive Democratic majorities elected expressly to stop it. Obama's high-stakes 2008 Super Bowl ad blared "Getting Us Out of Iraq," and it worked. He was elected. But the cold hard fact seems to be emerging that, regardless of public opinion, the wars will roll on.
The occasional heroic Congress member or senator will call for a timetable, an exit plan or a halt to war funding, but despite lots of heat generated in the debate, the war bills seem to pass at the end of the day. This is because incumbents' real constituents are no longer the people who live in the district. The real power, the money which pays for television ad blitzes and the all-important donations to the local Little League, comes from far away.
Very few people know that on average 80 percent of their Congress members' and senators' campaign funds come from outside the district, and largely from outside the state. They come from industries like defense, telecommunications and financial services. What do they get for these contributions, even in cases when the Congress member votes against those contributors' positions on certain bills?
The 1976 US Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with "free speech," affirmed your right to buy your own congressman. But it did not explicitly affirm your right to buy mine. Since that decision, the amount of money in politics has skyrocketed and is at all-time highs. Also at record-breaking highs are the pay-offs, like bailouts for the auto and financial services industries.
The savings and loan bailout of the nineties, at $200 billion, was chump change compared to the $700 billion TARP slush fund of today, which rewards financial services companies for the subprime mortgage fiasco. In searching for an answer to how the $3 trillion Iraq war can drag on despite three years of Democratic majorities in Congress elected to end it, follow the money.
The citizen's watchdog group MAPlight.org has found that congressmen who voted for TARP, the "Troubled Assets Relief Program," received nearly 50 percent more in campaign contributions from the financial services industry (an average of about $149,000) than congressmen who voted no. Legislators who voted for the automobile industry bailout in 2009 received an average of 40 percent more in "contributions" from that industry (the less politic call them "bribes") than those who voted against it. And House Energy and Commerce Committee members who voted yes on an amendment in 2009 favored by the forest products industry, to allow heavier cutting of trees, received an average of $25,745 from the forestry and paper products industry. This was ten times as much as was received by each member voting no. This pattern repeats itself over and over.
True, contributions don't guarantee a particular legislator will vote your way. But neither will he or she filibuster your bill or go on TV to ask rude questions about impacts to taxpayers or consumers. Arguably, that could be called hush money.
What we have arrived at is a system of industries, defense, financial, telecommunications, health insurance, trail lawyers and the rest, looking to appease those who, as Richard Nixon said, can do something for them, or something to them. Take one example: Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who chairs the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. This is the final hurdle for war appropriations bills after they pass the House. No war bill gets to the president's desk until it gets past Inouye, who can stop it cold, send it into perpetual conference committee loops or change it in a dozen ways. As one might guess, money comes pouring in to Inouye from defense contractors from across the country:
Inouye takes in $160,000 from corporations not in his district that have a financial interest in war. Double Medal of Honor winner Gen. Smedley Butler said after World War I, "war is a racket."
How do we change this? We can call for reform which forbids money from outside the district. If money from PACs or individuals is to be equated with "free-speech," then let it be confined to its rightful boundaries. There are now "free speech zones" for anti-war protesters, who welcome some public figures into town. So, the idea of geographically restricting some speech in the public interest is well established.
By halting money from outside districts, connections between business interests and committee members will be by coincidence, not forged as unholy alliances, which may conflict with the interests of real constituents. The influence of the defense industry over key committee members and House and Senate leaders will be diluted. The principle of Buckley v. Valeo, that money equals free speech, remains intact. But congressmen will still answer to constituents, the way they are supposed to. Of course, citizens are always free to work their hearts out for whomever they want.
When two-thirds of the nation's wealth is owned by just ten percent of the population, as is the case in the United States, that ten percent has a lot more money to give than the other 90 percent: therefore, the interest of society in limiting the corrupting influence of money across geographical boundaries is clear. MAPlight.org found that money travels outward from wealthy zip codes to poorer ones.
If congressmen were not meant to represent geographical constituents, the founders wouldn't have drawn district maps. Campaign finance is now a frenzy of interests shopping for committee members and chairpersons across the country. The industry determines which committees are targeted. The reason incumbents no longer pay attention to constituents who are overwhelmingly against bailouts, or strongly anti-war, is that their real bosses will always give them enough money to bury any challenger in a blizzard of negative TV ads.
Why should Boeing Aircraft (maker of the Apache helicopter,) which doesn't even have a shop or an office in my district, be allowed to give money to my congressman in Boston? (It does.) He shouldn't be worrying about what Boeing thinks. He should be worrying about what I and my neighbors think. Without any extraneous distractions.
If there is one thing congressmen hate, it's being embarrassed and tongue-tied in public. If he or she won't go to the mat to end the wars, or for any other issue important to the district, then ask your representative what's the deal with that contribution from the real estate company in Arizona. Or what have you. If your congressman is using your district's leather seat (it belongs to the district, not to any one person or set of outside interests) in that historic, marble-filled chamber to represent you, vigorously, then there's no problem. If not, further questions are in order.Read more...
from David Delk, Alliance for Democracy Portland The Mad As Hell Doctors Care-A-Van national tour got its kick-off start in Portland OR on Tuesday morning.
In the words of the Mad As Hell Doctors:
Our cross-country mission: to stop in big cities and whistle stops alike, conducting pre-booked, local and national media appearances for a curious press. Every move we make along the way will be recorded on camera and then edited and uploaded to the internet that same day. This will allow our Mad As Hell Doctors Tour to leverage the edited video segments on social networking web sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, et al. In this way, our effort becomes an unprecedented hybrid of reality television and political activism that offers people the opportunity to follow us, in real time, as our story unfolds. The message will be unmistakable: caravan with us to Washington and help make a public demonstration of support for Single Payer Health Care that will be heard around the world.
Beth Kerwin, David Delk and Bill Michton at the tour kickoff
Imagine... Thousands of cars pulling into the nation's capital for a protest on the White House lawn. The sidewalks are filled with supporters carrying signs in support of the Mad As Hell Doctors who have captured the imagination and the ignited the passion of their fellow citizens. We wave and honk at the camera crews, as do the endless line of cars behind us, as we wend our way toward the White House. On every antenna, on the backside of every car, and flapping like flags from sidewalk supporters, is the symbol of this new movement: the White Ribbon.
You can be a part of this people's movement for Single Payer Universal healthcare, not health insurance for profit. Go to the Mad As Hell Doctors website and check out the route to DC. They plan to be there September 30/October 1 with 19 stops along the way. You can help them with travel expenses by donating at their website.
Rep. Anthony Weiner says its time for the Democrats to take a "keep it simple" approach and build on existing single payer programs to expand care to all, thereby winning back reasonable voters and leaving the GOP to continue their traditional cozy relationship with corporate interests
by Rep. Anthony Weiner. Posted September 7 on Huffington Post
As President Obama prepares to address the nation about his vision for health care reform, we should not overlook the last, best truly transformative change to our health care system: Medicare. We have been staring so intently at the lessons of 1993 that we may have forgotten the universal rule of successful lawmaking: "keep it simple."
During the eleven town hall meetings I've held around my district, I've had some direct experience with the anxiety this debate has produced. Much of the fear comes from two groups: those who have Medicare and don't want it changed and those who have never had a government-run reimbursement system like Medicare and are worried about the impact it will have on their quality of care.
In both cases, a calm, reasoned and vigorous defense of the American single-payer plan is just what the doctor ordered.
The truth is that the United States already uses single-payer systems to cover over 47% of all medical bills through Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Understanding that these single-payer health programs are already a major part of our overall health care system should help us visualize what an actual public plan would look like. These institutions also provide health care to millions of satisfied customers in every community who would heartily agree that the government can build and run programs that work quite well.
Medicare also provides us with a case study in the hypocrisy of our Republican friends who have built their party on a 44-year record of undermining this popular program. And now their Chairman sees no irony in ripping "government run" healthcare while publishing an op-ed opposing changes to Medicare.
If Medicare has been such a success, why not extend it? Why not have single-payer plans for 55 year olds? Why not have one for young citizens who just left their parents or college coverage?
So far, the answers we hear to these questions have simply not been very convincing.
At one town meeting the President responded that that he was worried about its "destructiveness."
Really? Americans would still go to the same doctor and the same neighborhood hospital. Sure, they would be able to delete the 1-800 number of their insurance company from their cell phones. And doctors would have to get rid of all those file cabinets full of paperwork while their assistants who spend time fighting with insurance companies would be able to actually speak to patients.
But everyone would adjust, I'm sure.
The real reason we haven't seen the Democratic Party embrace the obvious and simpler idea is that it boils down to pure beltway politics.
We've been reluctant to tackle the real inefficiency in the current system, namely, the very presence of the private insurance companies. Too many in Washington would rather stay friends with the insurance and drug companies when real reform probably can't be achieved in a way that makes these powerful institutions happy.
That's not to say we should vilify the industry. When they pocket up to 30% in profits and overhead (compared to 4% for Medicare) or when their executives take multimillion dollar salaries, insurance companies are doing what their shareholders want them to do.
But let's leave it to the Republicans to defend those actions. I, and most Democrats, should not join the chorus that sounds like we care more about insurance companies than taxpayers.
The same is true for Big Pharma. If Wal-Mart can pool its customers to be able to offer the $4 prescriptions, why shouldn't the federal government drive the same hard bargain on behalf of the tax payers so they too get the best prices under Medicare? I pose this exact question at every town hall meeting I attend and if my colleagues and the President did the same on Wednesday night, they would mix good policy with good politics. Instead we have watched a puzzling dance as policymakers have effectively limited the savings we would find in the enormous drug expenditures that are a fixture in our current system. Is it any wonder citizens are confused?
I have no delusions about the muscle needed to overcome resistance from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. But I believe that for every American we may lose to a slash-and-burn TV ad funded by these businesses, we will gain five among those who are looking for a clear rationale for what we are trying to accomplish and an example for what it may look like.
We also achieve something else: realignment of the political universe. Democrats understand the role of government and are proud of our signature achievement: Medicare. The Republicans care most about big business.
I'll take that fight any day. And I'm hoping that the President will tell us on Wednesday that he is willing to do the same.Read more...
Drive the message home! Support constitutional rights for people, not corporations and show the big donors you're on to their game with these bumperstickers!
